[JRios1968]

No biggie. Stare Decisis is simply a way for Liberals to get into the Constitution those things they can't get through the electoral process. After all, they only invoke it whenever the possible outcome of a case would reverse the Liberal agenda.

For example, if somehow, in 2001, 3 of the 7-2 majority in Bush v Gore had incredibly decided they were wrong and it should be overturned, we would have heard not one Liberal defending the principle of Stare Decisis.

But as soon as there is a majority to overturn Roe v Wade, we better get ready for the howling and gnashing of teeth from the Liberals, screaming how Stare Decisis is being violated.

[DoraC]

You give a poor example, but you're right. Liberals only defend the precedents they like. However, considering all precedents, liberal and conservative, should be important for a conservative judge. The fact that liberals don't do that is no reason at all to do the same.

[rollo tomasi]

Liberals will defend stare decisis when it suits them but my problem is when conservatives do the same. Many conservatives take an "oh well it's law, if you want the precedent changed then propose a Constitutional Amendment" excuse.

Like I said before, many conservative folks fear Judges who overrule precedent based on bad law by "liberal activist" because they can't stand the idea of a "conservative activist".

It does not make sense, if the law is flawed on foundation we are not to review and overrule? Twisted if you ask me but then again I don't practice a twisted occupation.