AG Alberto Gonzales today opined that the SCOTUS is not bound to follow the Roe v. Wade precedent. To which you might respond, "weel, duh," but it brought forward predictable protests from the usual suspects. Armando at Kos, for example, invokes the principle of stare decisis. Armando's argument omits one key fact, however; namely, that stare decisis is given far less weight with respect to Constitutional issues than with respect to statutory or common law decisions.
Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. . . . This is commonly true even where the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation. But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. The Court bows to the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning, recognizing that the process of trial and error so fruitful in the physical sciences, is appropriate also in the judicial function.
Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406-408 (1932) (Justice Brandeis dissenting).
