But that is exactly what it has been used for for several generations by liberal activist justices. I want to see a few of those misguided "remedies" reversed, and strict adherence to stare decisis doctrine would not allow that to happen. I'm not at all sure that Roberts would vote to reverse some of those bad decisions, but I am quite sure that Thomas would and reasonably sure that Scalia would also.
I believe I could be satisfied with Roberts' decisions if he was working with a clean sheet of paper, but all justices have to take into consideration bad decisions of the past which are now considered to be settled law. I realize that simply ignoring precedence would create serious problems, and that precedence should have a great deal of influence when justices are forming their own later opinions. But if bad decisions are so deeply graven into stone that they can never be reconsidered, then separate but equal public facilities would still be settled law and public schools, parks, buses, etc would still be racially segregated. I would just like to know how firmly he is committed to stare decisis before I feel comfortable about him.
I personally like his answers on Stare Decisis. Basically, all he is saying is that he respects judicial precedents and will give due consideration to them. That doesn't mean that he would blindly follow them. Both he and John Kyle agreed that settled caselaw can be overruled as new circumstances come to light.
In other words, he'll start out by treating Roe v. Wade as settled law, and then proceed to tear it to shreds with other arguments. After all, Plessy v. Fergusan was settled law for 58 years before it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education.