5 ms·
> To overturn a precedent, it is not enough that a majority of Supreme Court justices think it was wrongly decided, you also need a case – which requires a stat
by magicalist 4y ago
> To overturn a precedent, it is not enough that a majority of Supreme Court justices think it was wrongly decided, you also need a case – which requires a state to enact and seek to actively enforce a law violating the precedent
You don't need a new law that seeks to ban all birth control to challenge and lead to a repeal of Griswold. Maybe a former court would have tried to limit scope, but Dobbs vs Jackson wasn't about a total abortion ban, it was a ban at 15 weeks, and yet here we are.
- skissane 4y agoI think it is different though – Roe v Wade wasn't just a court decision, it was a political symbol, and an issue on which many justices have deeply personal feelings (one way or the other). Griswold isn't a political symbol to anywhere near the same extent. And even people who think contraception is a sin, don't get anywhere near as emotive about it as they do on the abortion issue.