Verification Re: your understanding of precedent

[Ken Ashford]

In response to Howard Gillman's post, it sounds as though that Spaeth and Segal have created a false dilemna: justices either (a) follow precedent even though they disapprove or (b) are adjudicating based on their personal preferences and attitudes.   The question is not "whither precedent" but rather, a matter of precedential value.  Surely, many Supreme Courts justices are going to adhere to their particular Constitutional interpretation in spite of precedent, simply because the Constitution itself carries more precedential weight than the progeny of cases which flow from it.  And a good thing, too, I say, in light of Dred Scott and any number of other examples.