J. Kavanaugh says that stare decisis is "part of the original understanding" of the Constitution, citing Fed. 78. Precedent must be "egregiously wrong" to overturn. He gave very similar testimony during his confirmation hearing. See post by @RandyEBarnett reason.com/volokh/2018/09… 
Justice Kagan criticized "one note" originalist brief and oral argument. Not everyone thinks originalism is "alpha and omega of every constitutional question."
J. Gorsuch also seems to embrace Chisolm v. Georgia: "the people were the sovereign."
J. Gorsuch offers a different take on stare decisis: " I don't think, that a prosecutor has a right to rely on an unconstitutional rule to put someone in prison." Does gov have "a reliance interest to keep people in prison despite an unconstitutional rule."
ASG Feigin offers a non-originalist response to J. Gorsuch: "I can't think of anything that's more antithetical to judicial humility than deciding that this Court, all of a sudden, has discovered some historical principle that has eluded its predecessors going back 170 years."
J. Kavanaugh responded to this un-originalist answer: "federalism is designed to protect individual liberty" and "your rule strikes some . . . as an infringement of basic concepts of individual liberty."
During oral arguments in Gamble, J. Kavanaugh said a precedent should be overturned only if it is "grievously wrong." He gave a similar explanation to Susan Collins
#SCOTUS
#SCOTUS
.@joldmcginn explains why J. Kavanaugh "grievously wrong" standard is "open-ended and invites a decision about how good the prior case is as a matter of policy in the Justice’s view."
lawliberty.org/2018/12/07/is-… #SCOTUS
lawliberty.org/2018/12/07/is-… #SCOTUS
.@joldmcginn praises J. Gorsuch's approach to stare decisis. He "seemed to favor following the original meaning even at the expense of the Double Jeopardy Clause precedents" #SCOTUS lawliberty.org/2018/12/07/is-… Let's keep an eye on if Kavanaugh is closer to Roberts on Stare decisis
