Bad court decisions should be overturned.
Plessy v Ferguson is the classic example. That second decision (Brown v Bd of Education) righted a wrong and is held in reverence by the Left.
Roe v Wade was wrong and should have been overturned.
That second decision (Dunn) righted a wrong — but is the Left arguing that you cannot have any sort of “do over”? Your first court decision must be sacrosanct and never be re-visted? Should we take this approach to Roe? To Plessy? Both? One of them? Neither?
So...you think the Court should reverse the decisions in both? As Cornyn seems to be advocating?
It’s always and ever simply a case of “It’s OK when we do it.”
The Court had a long run of liberals running it, and thus gained a reputation as the arbiter of everything, a sort of Super Legislature. This was all well and good, until decisions were handed down that they don’t agree with. Now it’s a Crisis. Overheard this week, uttered by the oh so tolerant “liberal” Democrats: “Pack the Court!” “Hang that Ni@@er!!” “Dissolve the Court!”. Last week, it was assassins.
It is a pathetic spectacle unlike anything ever seen. (Until the next thing, maybe this week, who really knows?)
“Politicizing the Court” = Anything Liberals Disagree With.
The Court was never envisioned as being a way to enact law, but Liberals used the judicial system to do an end run around issues that could not be accomplished legislatively.
Precedence or Stare Decisis is a sound legal doctrine, but it is not set in stone, nor should it be obviously. It is amusing that they somehow can find “fundamental constitutional rights” on issues never once mentioned in the Constitution, yet at the same time hold that there is no right to own a firearm, which is written in plain text. I mean, you don’t have to like it, but don’t lie about it.
Equally infuriating is this business of ignoring laws they don’t like, and refuse to enforce them. The Constitution is not a Smörgåsbord, you are not allowed to pick and choose.