[Crystal Palace East]

(Sad) Bottom line; the issue is settled law. The Supreme Court sometimes reverses lower courts. It does not reverse itself.

Even worse, Obama thinks he is on a roll.

His next two (highly illegal/improper) Executive Actions may be to try to give voting rights to everyone in the US who (supposedly) pays taxes, etc;, i.e. all the illegal (democrat-voting) immigrants. Citizenship would not matter. They would not have to establish IRS compliance either. The fact that they paid sales tax when they bought their latest 6-pack of Corona would be enough for the Dems.

Next, free by Presidential pardon, all the (Black) drug dealers who pleaded down their serious felony drug dealing charges to drug possession misdemeanors, because the “system is so unfair to poor minor amount drug users.”

It’s coming.

[Theodore R.]

The court has reversed itself, as it did with Lawrence v. TX in the 1990s.

[Steve_Seattle]

It does not reverse itself.

Yes it does, as in Brown v. Board of Education, which reversed Dred Scott. But they usually don't reverse themselves in their own lifetime, although Kennedy pretty much did that in this case. His concern for state's rights in marriage law evaporated in about two-three years.

[gogeo]

Who would stand in opposition?

[publius911]

The Supreme Court sometimes reverses lower courts. It does not reverse itself.

Not quite accurate.

Although no specific court has ever reversed itself, there have been a handful of decisions that have been reversed by subsequent courts.