I think my point was to poke fun at stare decisis. I am a lawyer and I am opposed to this doctrine altogether. A decision need only rest on this doctrine when the justice cannot base the decision on the Constitution. Case law should only be relied upon when the precedential case was grounded in the Constitution to begin with.
Roe is a good example of precedent not worthy of being respected, let alone followed. Other cases, dealing with the 4th Amendment for instance, have legal value which should be used as a guide. They did not originate in a broad sweeping social policy revolution.
This thread will self destruct if and when I am ever nominated to the federal bench (as if my opinions here would be my biggest problem).
To me, Stare Decisis is judicial laches. To the extent that the affected public (my phrase) has come to rely on a proposition as settled law, it would be disruptive to reverse it because it has come to be viewed as erroneous from the outset. Otherwise, there would be no predictibility of a legal outcome and people who want to act within the confines of the law would have a harder time doing so.
In my own opinion, if Roe v. Wade were settled law to the extent that stare decisis clearly should be applied, then the Democrats on the committee (and Specter) would not be so frantic in trying to extract a commitment not to overturn it.
On the other hand, the securities laws, to name one area where stare decisis is important, are filled with made-up interpretations that have come to provide a settled and predictable model of outcomes, which securities practitioners can use to plan their own behavior.
YES!
Please disregard my previous question
(I really should read ALL the comments before I post :)
You don't really believe that. You'd want every case to be a case of first impression? The law would be completely unpredictable. Heck, even the admissibility of evidence would be unknown.
I'd say that most cases don't really involve Constitutional issues and that respecting precedence is a strong consideration (not a command from on high) in order for the law to have some degree of predictability.
On Constitution issues, I would agree generally with you. Horrendous SC decisions such as Dred Scott, Plessey and Roe were obviously not based on the Constitution but on political/social grounds and there is absolutly no need to respect them.