The Supreme Court has overruled its own precedents more than 200 times. Thomas Jipping writes:
In a New York Times column published Tuesday, Bret Stephens argued that while Roe v. Wade was “ill-judged” when decided in 1973, overruling it today would be “a radical, not conservative, choice.”
His premises and conclusion are both wrong.
In a 2005 interview, then-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, “I do not think the Constitution, or any text, should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily. It should be interpreted reasonably.”
Reasonable interpretation, he explained, requires giving “the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.”
Similarly, the Supreme Court overruling one of its previous decisions cannot simply be labeled “radical” or “conservative,” but must be evaluated on its own merits.
[Thomas Jipping, "Overturning Roe v. Wade Would Be Neither Radical Nor Conservative. It’s Just Right Thing to Do.," The Daily Signal, May 6]
