“A fairly delivered ball is a ball pitched or thrown to the bat by the pitcher while standing in his position and facing the batsman that passes over any portion of the home base, before touching the ground, not lower than the batsman's knee, nor higher than his shoulder. For every such fairly delivered ball, the umpire shall call one strike.”
Thus was the strike zone defined in major league baseball in 1907. The judge of the strike zone was the umpire identified in the final sentence.
Umpires are human. Not every one identified the shoulders and knees of the batsmen the way every other umpire did. Beyond this, the game changed over time. Pictures honed their skills. They specialized and rested more often. The balance between pitchers and batters tilted toward the pitchers.
Umpires gradually, perhaps unconsciously, reduced the zone of the strikes they were actually calling. They took a few inches off the top. In 1950 baseball rules were revised to reflect the new reality. “The strike zone is that space over home plate which is between the batter's armpits and the top of his knees when he assumes his natural stance.”
This restored the balance for a time. But pitchers caught on and continued to improve. In 1988 the strike zone was again redefined.”The strike zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the top of the knees.”
The experience of baseball illustrates the give and take between law on the books and law in real life. The rules of baseball are the game’s constitution. The umpires are the judges who interpret the constitution, applying it to particular cases.
For a given pitcher and batter on a given day, the theoretical strike zone is less important than the practical strike zone of that day’s umpire. Some umpires are known to call strikes high, others low. Good pitchers and batters adjust. But when the adjustments in a single direction become the norm, then it is the rules that have to be adjusted.
The term stare decisis isn't commonly applied to baseball. Yet the principle the term identifies is. The Latin phrase means “let the decision stand.” The point is to render the law predictable. Yesterday's decision will guide tomorrow's ruling. Citizens can shape their behavior accordingly.
Baseball highlights the importance of this principle. Whatever the written rules say the strike zone is, the pitchers and batters need to know how it will be interpreted by umpires. If umpires changed their interpretations capriciously, the game would fall to pieces.
Stare decisis doesn't freeze the law forever. If conditions change dramatically, a new ruling is in order. If the pitchers are regularly overpowering the batters, the strike zone should be changed.
At any given time the Supreme Court is called upon by various groups to change existing interpretations of the Constitution. For six decades liberals wanted the court to overturn its pro-segregation ruling in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. In 1954 the liberals got their wish with Brown v. Board of Education. For five decades conservatives wanted the court to overturn the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade declaring a right to abortion. In the 2022 Dobbs case, the conservatives won.
The present Supreme Court is likely to hear a case involving the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause. ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,” reads the first line of the amendment. In 1898 the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that this meant that the child of two non-citizen residents was an American citizen. For over a century, this ruling has been interpreted to mean that any child born in the United States – except to foreign diplomats and initially American Indians – is thereby a U.S. citizen.
Some conservatives argue that this interpretation is wrong, that it shouldn't apply to children of persons in the United States illegally. Because the Trump administration has issued an executive order based on this conservative reinterpretation, and because multiple lower courts have issued stays of the executive order, the matter will doubtless come before the Supreme Court.
If it does, the court will have to decide whether the existing interpretation should continue in force. If yes, the strike zone will remain where it has been. If no, the court will define a new one. The pitchers and batters will have to adjust.
Either way: Play ball!
We have reached a point where no law is a real law until SCOTUS tells us what it is. This is a rogue court. The Roberts court has never seen a precedent it doesn't mind reversing. Apparently, the only precedents that should not be reversed are "super precedents" but we haven't seen one of those yet.
Conservatives whined for years about so-called liberal courts "legislating from the bench." Yet nearly all SCOTUS decisions from those so-called liberal courts actually advanced freedoms and liberties and re-inforced equality under the law. The so-called liberal courts reined in abuses by law enforcement (Miranda), provided greater access to the right to vote, gave equality in marriage to same sex couples. In every case, the world did not come crashing down.
Obergefell v. Hodges (Marriage equality) did not lead down the ludicrous slippery slope of people marrying their refridgerators or their dogs (yes people argued that- never mind that appliance and dogs can't give consent). And it did not lead to plural marriages.
Roe advanced the principle of bodily autonomy. If we don't have autonomy of our bodies, then we are no better than slaves in the antibellum south! And no, a women's right to her autonomy is NOT the same as refusing vaccinations yet walking around in crowds- nobody is getting pregnant by sitting next to a pregnant woman.
The current SCOTUS advances rights without responsibilities.
The current SCOTUS has indeed legislated from the bench. When the court overturned a critical pre-clearance clause in BI-PARTISAN legislation by claiming it wasn't needed any more (and who is Roberts to decide it "wasn't needed?), GOP dominated states illustrated exactly why it was needed by immediately implementing vote suppressing legislation!
Loving v Virginia which overturned laws against inter-racial marriaga advanced marriage equality to people of different races. Apparently that is a super precedent, conveniently for corrupt Clarence Thomas.
I don’t own this book but is “stare decisis” covered In Stephen jay Gould’s book about baseball “triumph and tragedy in mudsville”?