By what process, if any , could Roe v Wade be overturned? Laws which forbid abortion are held contrary to some constitutional right to privacy. Would reversing that decision require another amendment to the Constitution? Or is it open to the Supreme Court to hold that the decision was wrongly decided, or to distinguish it. [Distinguish: technical legal term used by judges when they don't like to say 'wrong' but go on to add to and qualify almost everything in the other case, saying things like 'on its own facts' and 'risk of those words being too strictly construed', so the result is much the same as 'wrong' ]

We haven't got this problem in Britain. If Parliament passes a law, that's it.That's final.If you want it changed you have to get them to change it. No argument. Nothing about constitutions or morality or Magna Carta or the English Bill of Rights , just whatever the majority in Parliament has ruled

"Or is it open to the Supreme Court to hold that the decision was wrongly decided, or to distinguish it."

This is it.

Here is one well-known example of a Supreme Court case that effectively overturned a prior decision:

Brown v. Board of Education

Related Supreme Court Majority Opinion

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
Here is one well-known example of a Supreme Court case that effectively overturned a prior decision:

Brown v. Board of Education

Related Supreme Court Majority Opinion

Classic! " Effectively overruled" is right.

It's what we would call 'distinguished on its facts' . It's not necessary to say that the decisions of over fifty years before were wrong. All that's needed is to say is 'then was then and now is now' and now this policy does, in fact, produce an inequality which back then it did not [note:clear throat at this point and look innocent] or was not understood or intended to do [ note:stuff handkerchief in mouth after saying this bit. Gesture won't appear in transcript]. Circumstances have changed and circumstances alter cases