Stare Decisis. Bedrock or Quicksand?

"Stare decisis". That is all we hear from liberals when they question Supreme Court nominees. "Will you adhere to stare decisis?" is their prime litmus test for anyone destined for the high court. Stare decisis is defined as "the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent." In other words, when your favored opinion has been previously decided by appeal, it should remain supreme and unchallenged.

Liberals realize that many of the decisions on which their entire way of governing is based comes down to sometimes dodgy interpretation of the law by like-minded justices decades ago.

Losing the bedrock decisions, due to a second look or non-adherence to stare decisis causes all subsequent laws and decisions to become suspect and ungrounded. For them, this just cannot happen.

In 2010, Arizona passed a law, S.B. 1070 which gave local law enforcement additional powers to enforce national immigration law (since the Feds, under Obama and AG Eric Holder were not going out of their way to stop illegal border crossings). Arizona was immediately sued over the law and the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court. There, much of the law was overturned, mostly due to the primacy of federal law over state law. Liberals hailed it as a major victory for the "rule of law".

Fast forward to 2018. California has recently passed three laws which specifically hinder the ability of federal immigration authorities to apprehend illegal immigrant law breakers and makes it illegal for California citizens to assist. Additionally, their authorities are warning these illegals of impending raids. This is clearly obstruction of justice to anyone who would look at the facts on the merits alone.

The Attorney General of the US, Jeff Sessions, has filed a lawsuit against California for writing laws superseding federal law. Does the Governor and state AG claim their rights under stare decisis? Hell, no. That decision doesn't apply. Nothing to see here. We make up our own rules and you guys just need to roll over or get out of the way.

Liberals use the law as a cudgel until it is no longer useful, then they toss it aside.
Look at how they defended Bill Clinton, who had multiple sexual relations WITH AN INTERN while he was president and while he was physically in the Oval Office area, as a "personal decision between two consenting adults". Now, they see an alleged relation between Donald Trump (who was a private citizen in 2006) and a "porn star" as an impeachable offense. See? There is no consistency in their arguments. The ends ALWAYS justifies the means and their cognitive dissonance is to be ignored.

It hurts my brain to even write this stuff down.