General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsprodigitalson
(2,410 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,648 posts)It hasn't happened often, and usually it goes the other way, like when they killed Plessy v Ferguson.
I think this is the first time they overturned a decision that took away people's rights.
Hugin
(33,135 posts)The 6 reversed it in the first place.
Haggard Celine
(16,844 posts)They've done it in lots of cases. And a future Court can overturn the decision that overturned Roe. That gives us some hope. I don't know how they'll decide if different states pass referendums on abortion. I don't think they care much for democracy, so they might strike down those laws, too. A Court expansion is in order.
Stallion
(6,474 posts)...but now we need to at least focus on the states in the meantime
Elections have consequences-even if minority elected Presidents
RussBLib
(9,008 posts)....some justices meet an untimely demise.
Just sayin'
Clearheadsam
(273 posts)If Congress makes it the law of the land. If it passes in House and Senate you need 6O votes.
That could be struck down too. To truly change it, you need 67 votes and 3/4ths of the states to overturn it and put it in the Constitution.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)There has to be a case put before the SCOTUS that can trigger a reversal.
No doubt, if and when liberals regain a majority in the SCOTUS, a case or many cases will suddenly be created.
While the SCOTUS is normally reluctant to overturn precedent, especially if creating a radical reversal, I would hope the liberals on the court will be forceful enough to be just as sweeping and unconstrained with their own reversal of the reversal of Rowe v. Wade, and perhaps some other decisions as well on voting rights, gun laws, etc.
It's not going to happen anytime soon, however, unless we eliminate the filibuster and pack the court. While I dearly hope for that, I'm not holding my breath.
Polybius
(15,398 posts)1) The Supreme Court itself reverses its decision, which usually takes at least 20 years.
2) A Constitutional Amendment.
3) A Constitutional Convention.
Take your pick. It won't be 2 or 3.
In It to Win It
(8,248 posts)can overrule a decision of statutory interpretation.
Polybius
(15,398 posts)Can't overrule the SC unless its an amendment. We're stuck with this for a long time.
In It to Win It
(8,248 posts)If the Supreme Court interprets a statute in a way that Congress disagrees with, Congress pass legislation correcting that interpretation.
For example, in West Virginia v EPA, the question wasnt one of constitutionality, the Supreme Court says the EPA didnt have a certain power to make a rule under the Clean Air Act. Congress can pass a law saying EPA does have that power, effectively overruling the Supreme Court. Disputes of interpretation can be overruled with new legislation, but disputes of constitutionality cannot.
Polybius
(15,398 posts)I misunderstood, I was thinking of something like Citizens United. That one needs a Constitutional Amendment.
In It to Win It
(8,248 posts)That would required a constitutional amendment or the Court reversing itself, which that possibility seems years away.
Polybius
(15,398 posts)It was 5-4 but now it would probably be 6-3.
In It to Win It
(8,248 posts)Congress can introduce legislation that overrules the Supreme Court when it comes a dispute of statutory interpretation for example.
Obviously, the Supreme Court can overrule it's own decisions.