Precedents don’t last and concurring opinions eliminate effectiveness.
LeRoy '14 [Michael H; Professor, School of Labor and Employment Relations, and College of Law, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; "DEATH OF A PRECEDENT: SHOULD JUSTICES RETHINK THEIR CONSENSUS NORMS?";and Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School.; Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 43: Iss. 2, Article 3; pp. 402-403; https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2795&context=hlr; ror]
Strong consensus does not immunize a precedent forever;' 6° however, it tends to extend a precedent's life. 61 When Justices overrule a recent precedent decided by a large majority, they admit that they carry a heavy burden to justify their action. 162 These explanations do not necessarily mollify or persuade Justices who disagree with the overruling majority. 63 Other times, a dissenting opinion from an early case is cited to explain why a precedent should not be overruled. 64 Additionally, there are cases where the votes for a precedent have such a muddled meaning that Justices do not even agree whether they are overruling a precedent.165
Dissonance and confusion do nothing to inspire confidence in the law. There is something fundamentally wrong when -as I report here - half of the Court's overruled precedents survive twenty years or less. To the extent that a concurring opinion or dissenting vote perpetuates a Justice's reputation or public persona, or signals a think tank or interest group, or indulges a personal fancy, or reserves an issue for a future case, or cements the Justice's place in history as a swing voter or great dissenter, these judicial vanities infect precedents with dysfunction. The better approach is to reinvigorate the Court's consensual norms.166