Sometimes the original meaning of the Constitution conflicts with or points in a different direction from the SupremeCourt's precedents. When that happens, what is the role of stare decisis? To what extent is stare decisis consistent with or at odds with originalism? What should an originalist Court do with non-originalist precedent? What exactly does stare decisis commit a court to follow? Do the Supreme Court’s past practices or its duty to follow its precedents differ from inferior courts’ duty to heed Supreme Court decisions?
Fees information is not available at this time.