ABSTRACT
The theory of stare decisis stands directly opposed to that of incrementalism. Incrementalism could thus be used as a tool for teaching and understanding judicial decision-making that would coherently organize the actual process of decision without requiring us to drum the ideology of stare decisis into the law student and risk his subsequent shock and alienation when he discovers that stare decisis itself has been drummed out of the jurisprudential corps. The theory of stare decisis stands directly opposed to that of incrementalism. For the theory is that there are rational and immutable legal principles imbedded somewhere in the life of the law and that the technique of stare decisis facilitates the legal system's discovery of those principles. Incrementalism is, it seems to me, the most effective way of emphasizing the limiting functions of the new jurisprudence, and hopefully comforting those who see judicial extravagance lurking everywhere. Incrementalism is a theory of freedom and limitation.
