Replies

I admire Thomas, I do not admire strict adherence to precedent; precedents can be wrong and should be no more binding on any sitting SOTUS than is legislation passed by a previous Congress binding on a sitting Congress that sees what is “right” is something that undoes that prior legislation.

Each SOTUS should see itself as a new SOTUS, not a “continuation” of any prior SOTUS, except wherein the sitting SOTUS chooses by its own reasoning to agree with any prior SOTUS ruling; but NOT out of any fidelity to any prior SOTUS.

Instead of seeing the federal institutions being permanent in construction I think they should only be seen as permanent in design, with each new Congress, each new President, each new SOTUS recognized as a new “government” by design of the Constitution. I believe the design of the Constitution was for a permanent revolution by the manner of renewal by the choice of the people, and the choices their elected representatives can make. I believe in only fidelity to the Constitution, not the prior acts of Constitutionally organized prior office holders.

Each SOTUS should see itself as a new SOTUS, not a “continuation” of any prior SOTUS, except wherein the sitting SOTUS chooses by its own reasoning to agree with any prior SOTUS ruling; but NOT out of any fidelity to any prior SOTUS.

The principle of stare decisis arose out of the need for continuity in interpreting the law. If courts (subordinate to SCOTUS, in theory) can reinterpret the law based on what they believe a majority of current justices will accept, then the law has no meaning.

However, the concept of stare decisis. or precedent, should never be an inviolable ideal. Sometimes, cases are wrongly decided, and they must be overturned. Perhaps the most famous such instance is the Dred Scott decision, which was overturned by a later SCOTUS.

But please think about a situation where anyone can argue "the law means what *I* say it means at this moment in time" would really mean for law-abiding citizens nationwide.

Sometimes there is more than one option that will work, and switching between them has more costs than either of the options. For that, precedent is reasonable. Having made a mistake should not be justification for continuing to be wrong, but some things are both workable and ‘good enough’.