So, conservative judicial activism that overturns long-standing precedence on closing cases in a timely manner is a good thing?
Hoo boy. Better get ready for a BUNCH of lawyers to shout "MULLIGAN!" and re-litigate a bunch of moldy cases.
So it's better to stick with judicial activism once it's a long-standing precedent than to overturn it?
Give me a proverbial break!!
Are you suggesting that when a matter of this nature is reconsidered in light of 32 years of history, and it is determined that the matter was originally WRONGLY decided, that we should not make the correction because we don't want to upset a "long-standing precedence"?
"So, conservative judicial activism that overturns long-standing precedence on closing cases in a timely manner is a good thing?
Hoo boy. Better get ready for a BUNCH of lawyers to shout "MULLIGAN!" and re-litigate a bunch of moldy cases."
I guess you think Dredd Scott should not have been revisited.
I agree that it probably won't be taken up by the Court. I prefer the post world war two precedent where we convicted the Nazis for performing abortion because it was a "crime against humanity."
Most of the liberals on the court should be horse whipped.