[rayiner]

There must be a justification, but the bar isn’t as high as you’re making it out to be. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

> Nevertheless, we always have treated stare decisis as a "principle of policy," Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940), and not as an "inexorable command," Payne, 501 U.S. at 828. "[W]hen governing decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned, ‘this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent.'" Id. at 827 (quoting Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944)). Our willingness to reconsider our earlier decisions has been "particularly true in constitutional cases, because in such cases ‘correction through legislative action is practically impossible.'"

[jhp123]

I'm sure he'd join you in minimizing the importance of precedent today but my comment was a direct quote of Alito