[Dog Gone]

There's a lot not found in the Constitution, but stare decisis preceded the writing of the Constitution, and its existence was no secret. Without the concept, there would be no such thing as settled law, and no need for the court to issue an opinion explaining its ruling. It could simply rule for the plaintiff or defendant, and go to lunch.

The Supreme Court rarely reverses itself, but it obviously has done so in the past. In those cases, stare decisis clearly was not absolute. Nor should it be. But it's not something which is done flippantly, either.

[Sabertooth]

There's a lot not found in the Constitution, but stare decisis preceded the writing of the Constitution, and its existence was no secret. Without the concept, there would be no such thing as settled law, and no need for the court to issue an opinion explaining its ruling. It could simply rule for the plaintiff or defendant, and go to lunch.

Child sacrifice and temple prostitution preceded the Constitution, as did the Tea Tax. So what?

The concept of "settled law" is useful, but should not be preemminent over the concept of Constitutional law. There is a reason the founders chose to have a Constitution in writing: so that the central government couldn't ignore it as easily as it did under the unritten constitution of the English Crown.

The Supreme Court rarely reverses itself, but it obviously has done so in the past. In those cases, stare decisis clearly was not absolute. Nor should it be. But it's not something which is done flippantly, either.

I'm not sure I think flippancy is the issue, it's frequency.

Stare decisis ought to be cast by the wayside as frequently as unconstitutional rulings are made by judicial activists. I don't care if it's done so with flippancy or gravity.

Anything short of that will amount to eventual surrender in a war of attrition with the bench legislators.

Either we have a Separation of Powers, or we don't.