(2) 
As a general rule, the Supreme Court adheres to precedent, citing the doctrine of stare decisis ("to stand by a decision"). (3) The general ruleof stare decisis is not an absolute rule, however; the Court recognizes the need on occasion to correctwhat are perceived as erroneous decisions or to adapt to changed circumstances. In deciding whetherto overrule precedent the Court takes a variety of approaches and applies a number of differentstandards, many of them quite general and flexible in application. As a result, the law of staredecisis in constitutional decision making has been called amorphous and manipulable, and has beencriticized as incoherent. Butbecause the Court does not appear to have developed a "coherent or stable conception of theappropriate role of precedent in constitutional adjudication," (82) it is difficult to predictwhen the Court will rely on stare decisis and when it will depart from it.
As a general rule, the Supreme Court adheres to precedent, citing the doctrine of stare decisis ("to stand by a decision"). The general rule of stare decisis is not an absolute rule, however, and theCourt recognizes the need on occasion to correct what are perceived as erroneous decisions or toadapt decisions to changed circumstances. In deciding whether to overrule precedent the Court takesa variety of approaches and applies a number of different standards, many of them quite general andflexible in application. As a result, the law of stare decisis in constitutional decision making can beconsidered amorphous and manipulable, and it is difficult to predict when the Court will rely on stare decisis and when it will depart from it. This report cites instances in which the Court hasoverruled precedent as well as instances in which it has declined to do so, and sets forth therationales that the Court has employed.