[liberallarry]

Not eternity.

Just until its overturned by a new SCOTUS or by constitutional amendment. Stare decisis gives consistancy and stability to law. Very, very important.

As for Marbury vs. Madision who else but the SCOTUS is to decide whether Congressional Legislation confirms to the Constitutional mandates? It's part of checks and balances. The way to change the Court's decisions is by changing its members.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

Stare decisis gives consistancy and stability to law. Very, very important.

Statutory law, yes.

Constitutional law, no.

[Cboldt]

Stare decisis gives consistancy and stability to law. Very, very important.

But stare decisis can be abused, as O'Connor did in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[spunkets]

"Stare decisis gives consistancy and stability to law. Very, very important."

Not anywhere near as important as making sure Constitutional rights and the Constitution are protected. The SCOTUS ruling upholding all the various State and fed bureaucratic nitpicking laws are clearly unconstitutional, yet SCOTUS ruled contrary to that. Stare decisis is only as good as what it protects!

[bvw]

No, I do not think at all that stare decisis gives consistancy and stability to the law. In fact I'd assert that it does the exact opposite. Minor meanders in case law grow by tag-on decision after tag on decision into powerful flows of intellect at opposition to the orginal intent of the law. Like some wacky game of whisper down-the-lane.

Stare decisis -- it is now famously clear in that recent Kelo decision -- becomes the LAW and purges out the original law. In fact -- for stare decisis to have its full head, it must totaly unanchor from and thus make moot the original law and statute. Case law becomes imperially sovereign.