[kabar]

Exactly. He is upholding the general principle of stare decisis, but that doesn't mean that a prior SCOTUS ruling cannot be overturned. It has been done repeatedly throughout our history.

[ClearCase_guy]

I completely agree.

Dred Scott was a SCOTUS decision.
Plessy v Ferguson was a SCOTUS decision.

The Court can be wrong. Bad decisions by the Court ought to be overturned. The Liberals would be the first to agree with that (they like Brown v Bd of Education a lot better than Plessy).

Roberts supports stare decisis, as he should. But he is not bound by past decisions (and he knows it).

[Ol' Sparky]

Or maybe he is being honest and means what he says -- that precedent in regard to Roe should be overturned. If that's true, it will be late to do anything about another yet another moderate or liberal appointed to the court by a Republican President.

It might be a good idea to demand Republicans keep their promises and nominated a verifiable orginalist in the future and hold them accountable if they don't at the ballot box.