Courts reason that binding successors harms the public by blocking adaptive response to change

Evidence

It is vital to the public welfare that each one should be able at all times to do whatever the varying circumstances and present exigencies touching the subject involved may require. A different result would be fraught with evil. — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 132

Categorization

• QUESTION: If entrenchment is condemned because it blocks adaptation to present exigencies, what does that imply for when entrenchment is justified for self-binding against future weakness?
• XREF: connects to: An insulated judiciary raises the durability and value of legislative bargains. — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 334; Courts sometimes reach wrong outcomes to avoid bad future rules — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 548; Parties able to make binding commitments outbargain those who cannot — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 72 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Courts sometimes reach wrong outcomes to avoid bad future rules #expands (0.75) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 548
• Parties able to make binding commitments outbargain those who cannot #contradicts (0.72) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 72