I agree with all that in principle, but in practice it takes a very unusual or special case to go back and reverse law. There is some precedent for it, but it takes years and years, plus a really ideal case that is not to complicated. But most important of all, you must have teamwork on the bench.
I'd love to see it done, but that job fall to Roberts now. it is he who can accept this case and build consensus on the bench to do it.
If anyone here reading what I just wrote and does not understand that Bush was trying to do exactly that by putting Miers in as a supporting roll for Roberts, then they don't understand George Bush!
This is why I argued for Miers and downplayed Janice and some of the others. I felt they would be prima donna's and not play team work as Scalia, Thomas and now Rhenquist's replacement Roberts will do.
This teamwork is needed to reverse case law. if it is not there, like it was in the Warren court and others, the court cannot make radical changes at all.
That was my hope for Miers......But........
whatever.....You try and sometimes you lose, even for the wrong reasons when you play this game of politics.
The problem is the bad caselaw and as you say it takes a consensus of the Court to fix it. It'll be decades because there's so much bad law to be fixed...