Thread on folly of stripping ACB passages out of context. Many folks are misreading this snippet as though ACB were setting forth general view of stare decisis. No one who read/understood long law-review article in which it appears could think that. http://texaslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Barrett.pdf 1/

Whole point of ACB article is to *defend* Court's traditional principle of stare decisis on constitutional questions. It's not enough to conclude that precedent is wrong. Need "compelling" reasons for reversal, "need to take account of reliance interests." 2/

ACB sets forth a conceptual defense of traditional principle of stare decisis: "it promotes **doctrinal stability** while still accommodating pluralism." You have to read to second sentence of article to learn that. 3/

Later in the article (pp. 1725-30), ACB addresses the "institutional legitimacy" arguments that some have made in urging "a significantly stronger role for stare decisis in constitutional cases" than Court has adopted. 4/

It's only in this narrow context of addressing legitimacy arguments that ACB offers her tentative ("I tend...") take that many are clipping out of context and misunderstanding. 5/

ACB immediately adds that "constant upheaval ... would disserve rule-of-law values" but that "constant upheaval is not what [the Court's longstanding] weak principle of stare decisis has either promised or delivered." 6/

The correct takeaway from ACB's academic writings on stare decisis on constitutional issues is that she embraces and defends the Court's **traditional principle** (the "weak presumption," as opposed to a "stringent" standard under which precedent would rarely be overruled). 7/