Hendrick Hertzberg is in knots over the SCOTUS decision in Raich: The least muddled opinion was Justice Thomas's separate dissent, certain passages of which (e.g., "In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could...

I'm not sure how "why the majority rules" answers the problem about different interpretations, or how the ability to amend (very difficult in practice) solves anything, since amendments have to be interpreted (and Scalia, at least, will have no truck with legislative history).

That's why their are 9 of them and why the majority rules. As CK says, if conditions change and we disagree with the supremes we can amend.

Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a democratic republic and not a judicial oligarchy.

Smart, educated judges don't always agree on what the "original" meaning was.

So, in 2007, Chief Justice Thomas writes for the Court to uphold the "original" meaning of the Commerce Clause. And in 2013, Chief Justice Clinton (Thomas having died of a stroke when Hillary won the White House) writes for the Court to uphold a different take on the "original" meaning of the CC. Since we've torn up stare decisis, hey, no problem! The CC can change "original" meanings as often as the Court majority shifts!

It is nice if the law is right, but sometimes it's more important that it be predictable. Businesses, for example, need to know what the law on various subjects is, so that they can plan and act accordingly. Without stare decisis, there's a lot less confidence that the law will stay like it is. It can be a lot easier to work around a bad (interpretation of a) law than to shift gears every few years as to what the law is.

Ah, but was it the third decision? :>