George Leef explains to Forbes readers why it’s important that President-elect Donald Trump look beyond the label “conservative” when he chooses a nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.

… [T]here should be two crucial desiderata for Trump’s Supreme Court nominations. One is whether the individual adheres to an Originalist view of the Constitution. That is to say, trying to find the meaning of our basic law by asking what the drafters of the articles and amendments intended.

That is the most obvious fault line between “liberal” and “conservative” jurists. The former often ignore original intent in favor of a “living Constitution” approach that yields the results they favor. All of the people on Trump’s announced list are there because they have shown their preference for Originalism.

But Originalism shouldn’t be enough, Barnett argues. Trump’s team should also look for a nominee who isn’t wedded to the legal concept known as stare decisis, which means “let the decision stand.” Judges who follow that maxim are not inclined to overturn precedents. While there is much to be said for stare decisis in most fields of the law – stability and predictability are important after all – that isn’t the case when it comes to constitutional rights. Erroneous decisions of the past should be reexamined whenever called into question.

Judges who blindly adhere to stare decisis help to cement in place the vast federal administrative and regulatory state that often sacrifices individual rights on the altar of collectivist and authoritarian policies.