[davidosborne]

I respectfully disagree.. the question is RELEVENT.. and given the 32 years of history the COURT has an obligation to decided if the issue was as an original matter WRONGLY decided 32yrs of evidence to prove that it WAS wrongly decided 32yrs ago period

[Poohbah]

I respectfully disagree.. the question is RELEVENT..

WTF does "relevent" mean?

and given the 32 years of history the COURT has an obligation to decided if the issue was as an original matter WRONGLY decided 32yrs of evidence to prove that it WAS wrongly decided 32yrs ago period

The court has ZERO obligation to do anything.

Ms. McCorvey was under an obligation to (a) not perjure herself and (b) request reopening the case in a timely manner...neither of which she did.

[1LongTimeLurker]

I respectfully disagree.. the question is RELEVENT.. and given the 32 years of history the COURT has an obligation to decided if the issue was as an original matter WRONGLY decided 32yrs of evidence to prove that it WAS wrongly decided 32yrs ago period

Regardless, the court has to follow its own rules. It can't simply decide to accept this appeal if the rules don't allow for it. Remember, the last thing we want is judicial activism.

I don't see how the court can rule that she has grounds to bring anything related to this case before them, the case is 32 years old and she is no longer impacted by the previous ruling so she has no basis to bring anything before the court.

[Go Gordon]

given the 32 years of history the COURT has an obligation to decided if the issue was as an original matter WRONGLY decided 32yrs of evidence to prove that it WAS wrongly decided 32yrs ago period

Question: Has the USSC ever reversed itself?