CNN is untrustworthy, but the overturning of Roe v Wade is not really on the horizon, in my opinion. John Roberts won’t go against stare decisis.
Does there have to be a certain amount of stability in law, so that judges can decide cases with some degree of confidence that they are following correct interpretations? Sure. Even religious denominations have doctrine.
But, what about something that is clearly a patchwork of political expediency such as Roe v Wade was back in the 70s? It is more an example of “tradition” than it is of “doctrine”. “We do it this way because we do it this way.” is the only explanation for Roe. They can’t say, “We do it this way because that’s the best interpretation of the text.”
John Roberts won’t go against stare decisis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agree.
They still have a 5-4 majority for Roe even with a new Justice.