On the first of each two day symposium of the Fogg symposia, lawyers representing NGOs in the civil rights, judicial reform, and whistleblower advocacy fields are to share relevant work of featured legal scholars in lay terms; relate the underlying principles to real life cases; and propose appropriate reform efforts. Four (4) of the scholars spend the next day relating their featured articles to views on the vitality of stare decisis. Specifically, the combined panels of public interest attorneys and law professors consider whether compliance with the doctrine is reasonably assured in America given the: 1. considerable discretion vested in federal trial judges through the “plausibility pleading” requirements of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal; 2. dynamics of judicial self-discipline; and 3. impediments to effectively challenging apparent judicial motives and/or bias, including limitations on lawyer free speech rights. In other words, “Can America’s administration of justice remain adequately stable, predictable, efficient, and welfare-enhancing given the foregoing factors?”