<Dd> Stare decisis is not...a universal, inexorable command . "The rule of stare decisis, though one tending to consistency and uniformity of decision, is not inflexible . Whether it shall be followed or departed from is a question entirely within the discretion of the court, which is again called upon to consider a question once decided ." Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right . This is commonly true even where the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation . But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions . The Court bows to the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning, recognizing that the process of trial and error, so fruitful in the physical sciences, is appropriate also in the judicial function...In cases involving the Federal Constitution the position of this Court is unlike that of the highest court of England, where the policy of stare decisis was formulated and is strictly applied to all classes of cases . Parliament is free to correct any judicial error; and the remedy may be promptly invoked . </Dd> <Dl> <Dd> The reasons why this Court should refuse to follow an earlier constitutional decision which it deems erroneous are particularly strong where the question presented is one of applying, as distinguished from what may accurately be called interpreting, the Constitution . In the cases which now come before us there is seldom any dispute as to the interpretation of any provision . The controversy is usually over the application to existing conditions of some well - recognized constitutional limitation . This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause when the question is whether a statute is unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; of cases under the equal protection clause when the question is whether there is any reasonable basis for the classification made by a statute; and of cases under the commerce clause when the question is whether an admitted burden laid by a statute upon interstate commerce is so substantial as to be deemed direct...</Dd> </Dl> <Dd> The reasons why this Court should refuse to follow an earlier constitutional decision which it deems erroneous are particularly strong where the question presented is one of applying, as distinguished from what may accurately be called interpreting, the Constitution . In the cases which now come before us there is seldom any dispute as to the interpretation of any provision . The controversy is usually over the application to existing conditions of some well - recognized constitutional limitation . This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause when the question is whether a statute is unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; of cases under the equal protection clause when the question is whether there is any reasonable basis for the classification made by a statute; and of cases under the commerce clause when the question is whether an admitted burden laid by a statute upon interstate commerce is so substantial as to be deemed direct...</Dd> <P> The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated: </P>

Why are precedents important in deciding cases before the supreme court