摘要：Let me say at the outset that it is high time that the Federalist Society devoted a panel at a national symposium to the doctrine of constitutional stare decisis. For if there is any principle that is fundamental to the true conservative, if there is any doctrine that is inviolable to the true conservative, if there is any rule that is cardinal to the true conservative, it is stare decisis. And if you don't believe me, ask any true liberal. Isn't it amusing that liberals, who only recently have perceived the profound value of "stability of the law," have taken to lecturing conservatives on what it takes to be a true conservative? Listen to Sidney Blumenthal, a Washington Post writer who fancies himself as an expert on conservatives. He has denounced conservative attempts to "rescind the standing law" on "settled" constitutional questions. Blumenthal explains that "[c]onservatism is a defense of tradition," and he bemoans calls for a return to a constitutional jurisprudence of original intention. This path, he says, "attacking at least 60 years of Supreme Court precedent," is "unprecedented" and "a radical departure from settled law." 1 My favorite authority on true conservatism, though, is Professor Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School. As he explained during the 1984 presidential campaign, "truly conservative justices . . . will abide by the notions of stare decisis, . . . [a]nd they will not move in to simply count the votes and ...
