[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Why not?

Cause if stare decisis goes out the window, everything is open to relitigation and literally no issue is ever settled. The current behavior of the courts is bad enough, abandoning s.d. invites judicial tyranny.

[Tarkin]

"Cause if stare decisis goes out the window, everything is open to relitigation and literally no issue is ever settled. The current behavior of the courts is bad enough, abandoning s.d. invites judicial tyranny."

Hm, wasn't it Scalia that wanted to overrule Miranda v. Arizona? Now if there is ANY judgment that is more settled (in an average person's consciousness) than that then let me know. Now let's see what Scalia says - overruling Roe v. Wade, OK, overruling Miranda v. Arizona, OK, overruling Wickard, BAD! Now where is the logic behind this?

[Archon of the East]

Cause if stare decisis goes out the window, everything is open to relitigation and literally no issue is ever settled. The current behavior of the courts is bad enough, abandoning s.d. invites judicial tyranny.

Agreed to some extent but how then is an unconstitutional ruling overcome? And is ruling ever Unconstitutional? Doesn't judicial activism by definition render precedent obsolete?