Overruling precedent is never an absolute good but a choice between relative evils

Evidence

“The question whether the doctrine of stare decisis should be adhered to … is always a choice between relative evils. When it appears that the evil resulting from a continuation of the accepted rule must be productive of greater mischief to the community than can possibly ensue from disregarding the previous adjudications on the subject, courts have frequently and wisely departed from precedent.” — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1240

Categorization

• DEFINE: This articulation of stare decisis as cost-benefit tradeoff frames the operative standard for when departure is justified.
• XREF: connects to: Bare antiquity never justifies a legal rule once its original grounds lapse — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1247; Opposites like good and evil are relative contrasts within an absolute whole — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 915; An aporia forces decisions that can never be pure or fully justified — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of…, 2238 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• An aporia forces decisions that can never be pure or fully justified #expands (0.80) — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader, 2238
• Opposites like good and evil are relative contrasts within an absolute whole #expands (0.75) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 915