Dear Cold Heat,
"'Yet, you express favor for two Justices who would certainly overturn Roe.'
"I don't believe they would. I believe they would fix it, if given the opportunity."
What you believe is irrelevant. Writing in dissenting opinions, both have written that Roe is bad constitutional law, and ought to be thrown out.
"The court cannot simply overturn what it views as bad or unworkable law. it must have a case that it can use to clarify, extend or modify the existing laws."
Wrong again. When a case comes to the Supreme Court where ruling one way or other would have the effect of overturning a previous decision, the court usually does not.
But the court may, indeed, overturn a previous decision. The court may, indeed, overturn the precedents provided by previous rulings from previous Supreme Courts.
Look up Brown vs. Board of Education, which overturned a previous Supreme Court ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson.
In Plessy, the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" was permitted in laws that segregated the races. In Brown, Plessy was overturned, and segregation was ruled unconstitutional.
The court may overturn Roe, and considered it when deciding Casey.
Try again.
sitetest
Both have been critical of the law, but both are now bound by it. Scalia has made comments in the past, but I have heard little or nothing from Thomas.
He made his stance quite clear however, that their is no right to choose in the constitution.
But, they cannot vacate the law. They must follow it's intent unless of course, they decide to become activists.
Or better yet, they receive a case that will allow them to mitigate some of the more onerous provisions of Roe.
I think the latter is the more likely course of action.