There are cases in which reasonable people reading the Constitution and statutes will disagree as to how they apply to the matter at hand. In cases where several different result would all be reasonable, it is perfectly proper to use precedent to select among them.
Where judges go wrong is in regarding precedent as somehow being superior to the Constitution and statutes. There is only one case where it should be, and that only to a limitted extent: if courts have declared to be an action to be legal, such action should bar the government from prosecuting anyone for performing such action unless or until courts find it to in fact be illegal. The previous finding should not prevent future courts from declaring the action to be illegal, but must preclude any prosecution for people who perform it prior to such declaration.
Stare decisis only applies to conservative candidates in the media.
Liberals are allowed to overule precedent whenever they want.
Take the death penalty case last year in which the death penalty for minors precedent was overturned.
Having roberts and alito on the court we will be at a disadvantage. Ginsberg, breyer, stevens, kennedy, souter don't care about overturning bad precedent.
Roberts and alito would have been great judges before 1950. But with all the horrible precedents in the last several decades i fear roberts and alito.
Roberts and alito have an extremely rigid view of stare decisis.
Alito responding to schumer said he doesn't agree that even if stare decisis is in conflict with the constitution the law should be overturned.
Alito and Roberts won't make up any new laws like gay marraige but I don't like that alito said he places stare decisis over the constitution.
The media has missed the boat. Alito's personal views mean nothing if he is fixated on stare decisis. Alito will uphold all the unconstitutional precedence then.
Stare decisis that conflicts with the written text of the constitution needs to be overturned.
Affrimative action for example is in conflict with the constitution. It should be struck down.
Anybody that reads the transcript of schumer and alito talking about precedent was very unerving.
You take an oath to the constitution not stare decisis.