Morals and Precedent

The thing about morals is that they're constantly changing. If morals never changed, the constitution would have exactly zero Amendments. With morality so intangible and flexible, particularly over time, what kind of value does upholding precedent have?

This is where landmark court decisions come into play, and why they are considered landmark. Usually, society's morals change slowly and subtly, and it's almost unnoticeable. It's kind of like growing- you don't realize you're six inches taller until you go back to the doctor and they measure you. Then BAM, all of a sudden there's this new outlook on things. This is when precedent is overturned, when judges and the courts can no longer ignore the moral implications of not changing previous decisions.

Morals are just something that you KNOW. You don't know how you know, you just do. You feel it. But sooner or later, what you know will change, and the laws must accommodate this. Example: before the 1860's, slavery was legal, and everyone just KNEW that black people were inferior (I'm just making a point, this is not how I really feel). However, somehow in 1954, we just KNEW that separate but equal was wrong, and all citizens of the United States are equal. Precedent was overturned because of the budding changes in what society knew to be morally right.