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.
Appeal to SCOTUS is the last kiss o' the pig, and not likely to be heard by the Court.
In the words of the 5th Circuit:
The mootness doctrine “ensures that the litigant’s interest in the outcome continues to exist throughout the life of the lawsuit . . . including the pendency of the appeal.” Cook v. Colgate, 992 F.2d 17, 19 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395, 100 S. Ct. 1202, 1209 (1980)) (other citations omitted); see also Rocky v. King, 900 F.2d 864, 866 (5th Cir. 1990) (controversy must remain “live” throughout the litigation process). Mootness is the fatal issue for McCorvey.
IOW, don't get your hopes up.
You don't know much of what happened in the Roe case. Mrs. McCorvey was used and abused. I believe that the lawyers who supposedly represented her committed malpractice and fraud. By the time she figured out what happened, it was too late.
She had to wait until someone like Allan Parker and the Justice Foundation, as well as Operation Outcry and Silent No More could step up to help her.
Also, there is new legal standing, with some other case overturned in the last few years, opening the way to this filing.
Would you have let Justice Taney's ruling concerning Dred Scot stand because of "established law" and "relevence"?
Human beings, our children, are killed by abortion - nearly 4000 a day, 40 to 45 million in 32 years.
You assume perjury and you assume untimeliness -neither apply. New evidence has no such limits New evidence entails scientific and technological evidence not available at the time -among other things....
True. This will be bantied about like the 16th Amendment was. Supremos will say it's a political question after all this time and will refuse to get involved for the same reason they didn't want to get involved with shutting down the unconstitutional 16th. Right or wrong, the feds have been in possession of it so long it will be 'grandfathered' in, in a manner of speaking, IMO.
You are perhaps my favorite poster on this site. You always cut through the BS and get to the facts.