The balance between stare decis and original interpretation is an interesting one, as it gets to the philosophy of a justice with respect to the passage of time. Do things change enough to warrant reversing a prior decision, and if so, what standard applies? “Demonstrably erroneous” is different than “Grievously wrong”, and his willingness to make pragmatic changes opened even Justice Scalia up to criticism:
“Faced with this problem, Justice Scalia famously described himself as a“faint-hearted originalist” who would abandon the historical meaning when following it was intolerable. He claimed that “stare decisis is not part of my originalist philosophy; it is a pragmatic exception to it.””
Those who are interested in understanding the issue rather than just parroting talking points will find the article below worth reading, especially because the author is Amy Conan Barrett, who will likely be the next nominee to sit on the US Supreme Court:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4734&context=ndlr
Thanks for the link. I have DL’d and read a few pages. Very interesting actually, I expected it to be too heavy for me.
I will read the rest when I am not having my before dinner adult beverages.