Objective:
Warm-up:
- Think of a time when a parent, guardian, or teacher made a decision about something based on a similar situation in the past.
- Reflect about whether his or her decision was fair. Why or why not?
- Now think of a time when you believe your parent, guardian, or teacher should not have applied the same old rules or reasons to a new situation. Was his or her response fair? Why or why not?
- Finally, think about a time when your parent, guardian, or teacher seemed to ignore his or her own previous decision. Did that seem fair? Why or why not?
- What are the benefits and risks of sticking by the known rules?
- What are the benefits and risks of changing the rules for new situations?
What the Justices Think About Precedent and Stare Decisis:
- Based on what you read, why is adhering to precedent (or stare decisis) important?
- Based on what you read, what do you think would be acceptable reasons for reversing an existing precedent?
- What do you think the result would be if the Court ever abandoned the precedent set in the Miranda case? Would that be a good or bad outcome? Explain your answer.
Suggested Activity:
Deliberation Question -
Does a law that requires certain standards for abortion facilities and physicians place an undue burden on women’s rights to have an abortion?
The Left Column matches with Position A -
Texas law is unconstitutional. It poses an "undue burden' on women seeking abortions.
The Right Column matches with Position B -
Texas law is constitutional. It does not pose an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions.
The point of this activity is for you to prepare to deliberate (engage in long, careful, measured and thoughtful consideration) from both perspectives with the intention of reaching a point of consensus with the Roe v. Wade precedent in mind.