Justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution — not the glosses of their predecessors.

Roe v. Wade

Blackmun’s opinion was convoluted. The ruling is unlike any other SCOTUS ruling you will ever read. It’s a tortured mess.

There are parts of it that make you think, “Where did THAT come from? A justice actually wrote that? OMG !”

There is no basis for the ruling in the Constitution.

IT CREATED LAW AND ANNOUNCED A RIGHT.

Blackmun’s opinion stands out as overly long and complex, which doesn’t make up for its flaws, it actually points them out. From the moment it was released its flaws were apparent to everyone.

Roe v. Wade’s reversal will be based on the faults within the ruling itself and guided by Rehnquist’s and White’s dissenting opinions. They were right then and they still are.

The policy of Stare Decisis (let the decision stand) does not prevent reversal when the constitutional interpretation of a prior ruling is later understood to be flawed.

Justice Rehnquist noted that the Court “has overruled in whole or part 34 of its previous constitutional decisions”.

It’s the Court’s duty to reverse wrongly decided rulings. “Justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution — not the glosses of their predecessors.”