As we have pointed out in previous posts (see below), the tax case of South Dakota v. Wayfair, which was decided last month, presents a number of fascinating constitutional, philosophical, and institutional questions. The constitutional issues revolve around the Supreme Court’s convoluted and esoteric dormant commerce clause doctrine. The philosophical questions revolve around the doctrine of stare decisis. Specifically, is this doctrine logically coherent, and under what conditions should a court vote to overturn an outdated precedent? And last but not least, the institutional issues include the Supreme Court’s voting rules. In particular, how many votes should be required to overturn a precedent? A simple majority or a super-majority? These are all hard questions. There is deep disagreement among judges and scholars about how to answer them. For our perspective on these questions, below is a compilation of our previous posts on this case:

1. Is stare decisis dead? (6/22)
2. Facts and issues presented (6/29)
3. A Coasean critique of the Wayfair case (6/29)
4. SCOTUS and super-majority voting (6/30)
5. Final thoughts: see above (7/11)

Credit: @gapingvoid