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.
I haven't read the transcripts, but I did tape the first two days of the hearings and have viewed a good portion of the Q&A sessions. I came away with the impression from Alito, that he believes the Constitution is first and foremost, followed by statutes. Alito said stare decisis deserves consideration in the context of personal deliberation, but precedent should never be used by itself upon which to draw any final conclusions.