3 ms·

The court changing their mind feels like a feature not a bug. The court represents people, and those people change their mind from generation to generation. I

• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• Spivak 3y ago
  Our government is structured so that nothing is really set in stone. The people who are supposed to check bad decisions by the court are the legislature. This game we're playing is we now have one legislative body that writes laws and another that writes effectively constitutional amendments. This makes no sense at all and we've created an in-practice unchecked branch of government. So I don't disagree that the court has done good things with their power but once in a generation swings is much easier to put up with than what we have going now. The world hasn't meaningfully changed since they originally upheld universities' limited ability to discriminate and as much as I don't like that choice I still think take-backsies is a worse one. My (red) state has a bill going through right now to outlaw university diversity quotas and it likely won't pass so this isn't cultural attitudes changing.
• kllrnohj 3y ago
  There's a process for overturning "bad decisions" it's called passing legislation. There's a reason Stare Decisis is supposed to be a thing, after all. But if the Supreme Court doesn't have to listen to itself, then does any court? Should every minor court just decide SC precedent was bad & overturn it?
  • parineum 3y ago
    No two cases are the same. Often, a unique situation can highlight why a previous decision was erroneous.