"Separate but Equal" was SCOTUS doctrine for many years. So if "Separate but Equal" precedent can be struck down why can't' "RoeV. Wade"?

[BillyBalls]

The pro abortion nuts are trying to argue that since the "Roe V. Wade" was SCOTUS precedent since 1973 it cannot/ should not be struck down.

Why can some precedent be struck down but not others?

Should precedent only be allowed if it promotes the agenda of Leftist Loonies?

[OlderAndWiser]

Read about Erie Ralroad Company v. Tompkins, in which the Supreme Court struck down a precedent that was almost 100 years old.

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for MHO!

[Anonymous]

Of course. The law is supposed to only work in ways that the Left agrees with.

[Anonymous]

Roe v Wade was extremely weak case and even when they affirmed it they admitted it would be eventually passed onto the states.
People saying the SCOTUS are going to bring back racial segregating or revoke gay marriage are fear mongering with no logical or factual basis. The populist wing that is taking over the GOP is an very diverse bunch that includes liberals, center right, conservatives, libertarians and republicans.

[OddBeMe]

Nothing is sacred in America. It’s always changeable. Even precedent. Roe can and prob will be cast aside. But another pro abortion law, one harder to change, may rise up in its place.