Stare decisis's most prominent cost is binding judges to interpretations of law that they find unpersuasive, raising the fundamental question of when and why such a
restraint on judges» decision - making
autonomy is justified.30 In an ideal world, stare decisis would insulate valid principles of law from arbitrary and unprincipled revision without entrenching «bad» precedent against further review.31 In reality, stare decisis hinders defection from both appealing and unappealing precedent.