[freedomcrusader]

So it's better to stick with judicial activism once it's a long-standing precedent than to overturn it?

[Poohbah]

So it's better to stick with judicial activism once it's a long-standing precedent than to overturn it?

You overturn judicial activism by overturning bad rulings using sound rulings that do not step into new areas of judicial activism.

You don't overturn judicial activism by inventing more judicial activism.

The latter is like "fighting for peace" or "fornicating for chastity."

[wouldntbprudent]

It's hardly "judicial activism" to revisit a case, and even reverse a case, if appropriate legal standards are met.

Since the Court based Roe v. Wade in large part on what was then known (i.e., accepted by the Justices) as to when life "began," if there is new information that makes the original basis for the ruling obsolete, then there's nothing inappropriate or unworthy or "activist" about fixing the case.

Judicial activism consists of ignoring appropriate legal and constitutional standards in order to mandate an agenda. Stare decisis is important but it is not the be-all and end-all of the judicial system. If a case is wrong, it has to be fixed. That's what gives the law legitimacy.