No, most of them subscribe to a constitutional philosophy that once a bad decision has been made, it stays set even if they would have never ruled that way if they heard the case today, for example, Row vs Wade.

This is why, I personally prefer natural law judges over both constitutional judges, and "living constitution" judges.

Under natural law philosophy, your inalienable rights are well defined and exist above government and the constitution, and the government, law, and constitution maintain its legitimacy to the extent it is able to uphold and secure these natural law rights.