In a common law court system like the United States, there is a concept called "stare decisis," which states that inferior courts must - not should, but must - adhere to the decisions of past, superior courts.
In the event that a judge simply ignores a binding precedent that a litigant introduces in support of his case, and that litigant looses the case as a direct result, what options does that litigant have at that point? With judges possessing absolute immunity, I can understand that a litigant's options are limited, but I can't imagine that his options are non-existent. If it were, a judge could disregard binding precedent, and only have to worry about backlash if a superior court just HAPPENED to take notice. Is there an administrative board I can complain to? I understand that there is the board for judicial misconduct, but that is mostly for unethical things, like sexual harassment or bribery, not for being aware of binding precedent, and ignoring it.
So, who would I complain to?
In the event that a judge simply ignores a binding precedent that a litigant introduces in support of his case, and that litigant looses the case as a direct result, what options does that litigant have at that point? With judges possessing absolute immunity, I can understand that a litigant's options are limited, but I can't imagine that his options are non-existent. If it were, a judge could disregard binding precedent, and only have to worry about backlash if a superior court just HAPPENED to take notice. Is there an administrative board I can complain to? I understand that there is the board for judicial misconduct, but that is mostly for unethical things, like sexual harassment or bribery, not for being aware of binding precedent, and ignoring it.
So, who would I complain to?