He said it because it was a decades old decision that had been reaffirmed a number of times, not because he thought the reasoning was solid and should be preserved.Yes, it is a principal, it says the previous standing is settled unless something is horribly wrong with the decision. It is ridiculous to say that Kavanaugh only meant that the law had stare decisis simply because it existed and was upheld. That'd effectively be crossing your fingers while telling a lie.No. You don't understand the term. Stare decisis is a principal; it isn't a quality about a particular case.Saying something is Stare Decisis is effectively saying exactly that.I'm not struggling. No justice made that statement.
I think Metaphor is struggling with separating the court's ability to overturn rulings from a justice making the statement that they would not overturn a ruling.
Again, what the Senators wanted to ask was "Would you overturn Roe v Wade if the case came up". They didn't ask that and none of the questions they did ask were answered falsely.