Indeed.
When a court makes an "incorrect" decision -- by which I mean, of course, a decision which goes against the Liberals, it just means the fight will continue another day. There will be other cases, other decisions. There will be no let up until some court somewhere eventually "gets it right".
When a court makes "correct" decision -- by which I mean, of course, a decision which goes against Conservatives, then it's over. It's done. It's settled law. That's it. Law of the land and there's nothing you can do.
The Liberals won yesterday and I do not expect that damage to be undone by Romney or anyone who comes after. I expect Roe v Wade to be overturned first. And how is that one coming?
Ditto on #16. Well Said.
In all bad decisions (by that I mean wrong decisions) the courts set precedent that is skewed and used for future arguments. In Row V Wade, the SCOTUS should have rejected the premise that abortion was a privacy issue. It would have been tossed out and kicked back to the states to decide independently how they wanted abortion regulated. That precedent would have really been helpful in that the court could have argued, "The premise that abortion is a personal privacy issue is rejected by this court. Since there is nothing in the constitution to provide proper guidance as this case was presented. It is this courts opinion that the federal government shall have no jurisdiction over laws pertaining to abortion."
Had the court ruled that way, several cases that have followed since would have required a narrower argument and better constitutional standing to give the justices reference opinions to the actual constitution. If they really wanted to stretch, they could have ruled that abortion infringes on a baby's right to pursue life and liberty.
Reversing a SCOTUS decision is much harder than repealing a statute. SCOTUS would rather have a civil war than reverse Dred Scott! Remember how quicky that law which required seniors to have catastophic insurance was repealed in the late 1980s.
House Panel Leader Jeered by Elderly in Chicago
The NY Times is referring to Dan Rostenkowski. AARP mobilized seniors. IIRC, it was repealed in less than a year.