Replies

While listening to her interview, I was bothered by her mushiness in speaking about stare decisis.

On the one hand she says stare decisis arises historically from lower courts adhering to decisions from higher courts of appeal.(see #1)
On the other hand, she applies it to the Supreme Court.(see #2)

There is no court to appeal to, that's higher than the Supreme Court.

Is O'Connor implying that "previous Supreme Courts" are higher than current ones?

WALLACE: When one justice is replaced by another and suddenly the law of the land changes on an issue, can you understand why some people might come to think that the Supreme Court [#2] is less about principle than about politics?
O'CONNOR: That's the concern if stare decisis is disregarded. Obviously, that is a concern.
Our legal system is based on that of Great Britain. We just celebrated Jamestown's 400th birthday.
And from my perspective, one of the most important things the settlers of Jamestown did was to import with them the British system of common law.
And under the common law, if an appellate court decides an issue of law, then that's binding on the lower courts [#1] unless and until that appellate decision is modified or changed.
It's called stare decisis, and that's just an important concept under our legal system.