[Clump]

They are the same as everyone else's. It applies when you agree with the precedent, and it doesn't when you want the precedent changed. That is my summary of what nominees spend 20 minutes saying in a way that sounds logical. BTW, I would go through the same incomprehensible formula were I in their shoes.

[Ramius]

Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don't. :-)

[right-wingin_It]

I agree Clump. I think Stare Decisis (to stand by the decision) is something that's refered to 'after the fact' when a Judicial Desicion holds based in some way on prior precedent. In other words, the tests for Stare Decisis are universally invoked, and include those aspects Alito mentioned such as the prior precedent, re-affirmation of the precedent, length of time time passed since the precedent, and from what I understand also the degree the decision has imbeded itself, and possibly others.

But Stare Decisis is not the end all...Otherwise we would not have never overcome slavery and the like that has also been once heavily precedented and imbeded into our culture.

[blau993]

Stare decisis is a legal principle that says a judge, in deciding the issue before him, should take into account prior cases that have decided the same issue. The principle is intended to promotes stability and continuity in the law. However, it is not absolute, nor is it meant to be followed slavishly. Things can and do change, and one of the great advantages of our common law system is the ability to take change into account.

[Blessed]

Alito said it was important and gained weight ech time it was used in a subsequent ruling or was affirmed.With this said he would not accept that the Supremes could not revisit any issue.

[inquest]

Although I think stare decisis is vastly overrated when it comes to constitutional law (to put it mildly), Alito's comments on it still give good signals when it comes to Roe vs Wade. Basically he's saying that one should take into account "settled expectations", the flip side being that if settled expectations aren't really a factor, it's much easier to overturn it.

In the case of Roe, the only "settled expectations" are that abortion would remain legal. And it can remain legal even if the court's holding is overturned, just as long as the state legislatures agree to keep it legal. If they don't, then it's a very good sign that the people of that particular state don't want it to remain legal. And at that point, it would be no different from anything else which had been legal up to a particular point, but which the people decided should be illegal.