[MortMan]

Each SOTUS should see itself as a new SOTUS, not a “continuation” of any prior SOTUS, except wherein the sitting SOTUS chooses by its own reasoning to agree with any prior SOTUS ruling; but NOT out of any fidelity to any prior SOTUS.

The principle of stare decisis arose out of the need for continuity in interpreting the law. If courts (subordinate to SCOTUS, in theory) can reinterpret the law based on what they believe a majority of current justices will accept, then the law has no meaning.

However, the concept of stare decisis. or precedent, should never be an inviolable ideal. Sometimes, cases are wrongly decided, and they must be overturned. Perhaps the most famous such instance is the Dred Scott decision, which was overturned by a later SCOTUS.

But please think about a situation where anyone can argue "the law means what *I* say it means at this moment in time" would really mean for law-abiding citizens nationwide.

[Wuli]

I disagree that “continuity” is an ideal, when so often it merely preserves what should have been overturned.

“Continuity” is to preserve the image of the judiciary, but it is also based on an error in thought - that the judges should all always agree just to agree; that it is better to be wrong “in continuity” that to demonstrate to the public that they don’t all agree. THAT idea is the opposite their oath, to uphold the Constitution, not merely each other.

Again, it goes back to thinking of themselves as a mere continuum of their predecessors and their predecessors decisions, which is not what I think the Constitution expected.

[Faith Presses On]

“But please think about a situation where anyone can argue “the law means what *I* say it means at this moment in time” would really mean for law-abiding citizens nationwide.”

And that’s pretty much the kind of nation we may well be turning into.