Theoretically speaking, if a legal interpretation is valid, it must remain in force until the law itself is repealed or amended. ...
Stare decisis: Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true.
The problem is, in most jurisdictions, these decisions become a binding precedent that would inspire faulty interpretations of the law in the future.
Again, wow can the discipline of law tolerate these subjectivities...
The United States Supreme Court does not rule on matters purely covered by an individual state.
As I understand it, a supreme court decision is binding on all courts (at least if the issue is a constitutional one--and certainly on all federal courts, whatever the issue).
No; he's saying that laws stay in effect until new statutes take their places (or are passed). Not true with precedent.
The USSC routinely deny certiorari on cases
Judges in 2015 are people, with passions, prejudices, and squick factors like you and me.
They have no choice about whether or not to "tolerate" subjectivity. Law is a human endeavor, subject to human frailities, like it, or not.
Theoretically speaking, if a legal interpretation is valid, it must remain in force until the law itself is repealed or amended.
Again, wow can the discipline of law tolerate these subjectivities while maintaining academic objectivity at the same time?
Although there are undoubtedly some exceptions, this basically supports what aja said, doesn't it, jespah?
Aja's "it MUST remain in force" (no exceptions mentioned) is different from Cornell's "generally but not universally".
"we the people" tend to get the judges we voted for