[flashbunny]

wow, the spin, my head hurts.

This is the most important part though, which for some reason you didn't really address:

The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent, and whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling.

So basically, anything that is blatantly unconstitutional, like CFR or gun control, could be thought to be unconstitutional, but if we've come to rely on them, we have to keep them in place.

Do you really think she's going to be the judge who will help roll back decades of liberal judicial activism???

[ez]

whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling.

You are right, that part is disturing. Reliance should only be considered when deciding HOW QUICKLY you should do the right thing, and whether you should allow people time to make changes. It has no bearing on the Constitutionality of the priciple involved, and thus should have no bearing on the final decision.

Point to you...