Seems that precedence (stare decisis) of the court only matters when it serves liberal interests, especially abortion.
Consider this comment by "Justice" Ginsberg on today's Supreme Court ruling upholding the partial birth abortion ban.
"and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives. A decision of the character the Court makes today should not have staying power.":
What's wrong with this statement? Well, this ruling is now precedence, yet Ginsberg is hinting that it should be overturned! Typical liberal hypocrisy - they follow the rules that serve their interests but abandon the same rules when they don't.
However, legal precedence is overrated to begin with, and stare decisis is a dogma of the legal community which all too often is used to justify ignoring the Constitution and overturning the will of the people.
