Legal scholars know about as much about law as priests do about religion or poets about art: they know what they want it to be, but not what it is.

Is David Addington's understanding of the Constitutional separation of powers wrong in the sense that one plus one doesn't equal three? Do mathematics and physics allow for Stare Decisis? If not, why not?
Stare Decisis is the moral foundation of the Church's political argument against Galileo, the Burkean argument against revolution and the logic behind Republican pandering to social conservatives -it's what they pander to, not why they do it- but I happily defend it as legal principle, in the name of the stability, continuity, and neighborliness.