In the judicial sphere, conservatism favors gradual, organic change in law and opposes abrupt discontinuities even when pure logic is in favor. In that manner, conservatism places great weight on the reliance interests and settled expectations that are part of the working capital of a coherent legal system. Otherwise, when there is constant change in the law, the courts, the bar, and the public at large must suffer a high degree of doubt as to what the law is.
Justice Scalia used to say that after about 75 years, even unwise changes in constitutional doctrine that have not been overturned become so settled and accepted that they are usually best deferred to instead of being reversed. One can argue Scalia's point on the specifics, but the principle itself is a sound expression of conservative thinking.
True enough.
conservatism favors
Don't care what "conservatism favors".
Part of recovering our Free Constitutional republic would include the gradual phase-out of unconstitutional Social Security and Medicare (if the people want it then they should have their state set it up for them, ramping up as the feds ramp down. These are states' issues).
Unconstitutional federal wage and hour laws should be immediately abolished.
All federal interference with state law based on incorporating the 14A should be immediately overturned. That would mean reinstating the Bible and prayer in schools, reinstating state anti-abortions laws, and reinstating state marriage laws,among other things.
Dancing in the streets.
I don't agree with Scalia, who seems like many, to ignore the fact that it would be about reversing 75 years of unconstitutional decisions that overturned about a century of constitutional precedents that were previously settled and accepted - by everyone except the Fabian Socialist Left.