•  
  •  
 

Authors

Jon G. Heintz

Abstract

The article focuses on the benefits of the extended deliberative process and addresses the practice of over-ruling precedent and sustained dissent. It discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock and Citizens United v. FECP to explain the role of sustained dissent in judgment. The practice of sustaining one's dissent is become controversial and raises the questions about the nature of stare decisis.

Share

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.