There could be two or three hundred times in its long history, but certainly it is a relatively rare occurrence for it to reverse or overturn a prior ruling. But it is not possible to undo the damage done by a plainly bad decision. In our time, Bush v. Gore and Citizens United would qualify as plainly bad decisions. If another Bush v. Gore arises, and it surely will, the opposite decision is rational, i.e., let the counting continue until the result is known, assuming the result is critical to the outcome. Or if the the election is hopelessly flawed, then order that the election flaw be remedied and the election process repeated. The correct result should be paramount. The Constitution provides for the case of an election having occurred but no qualified candidate having emerged victorious.. Citizens should be reversed. I am certain that attempts will be made to get the Court to take it up again, but on what grounds? There are several good possibilities at least.
I don't even care about abortion decisions to be honest, just pointing out the clownery of the so-called prestigious supreme Court. my personal thoughts on abortion are if it's a late-term abortion it's disgusting and vile. If it's within the first 3 months like whatever. Although technically I think that life begins at conception I'm not a bible thumper and I'm not religious in any way shape or form really. When the baby starts looking like an actual baby in the womb I think it's wrong to kill it but those post 5, 6 month abortions are disgusting.there's something seriously wrong with politicians that fight for that shit
Women have been having abortions for at least 3,500 years. Think about that. The good news is that abortions are on the decline with increased access to birth control. I honestly think we should be focusing on things like adoption alternatives and birth control. Trying to pass a law or compromise on this stuff won’t help. Unless your goal is to throw women and doctors in jail rather than reduce abortions.
You might want to see if women actually agree with this compromise. You might be surprised to learn they may want you to get a vasectomy as part of the agreement since were all compromising on each others bodies.
Therein lies the rub, by law, the fetus isn't a "body", but we know it's the compromise we've made to basically kill babies due to the inconvenience of rearing one (rape/incest notwithstanding). A bit of honesty on this whole "my body, my choice" debate would go a long way. I'm no hypocrite running to the adoption agency or donating to single mothers organizations, so that bit of honesty should extend to our self-reflection on not doing a damn thing after a baby's born into a world that doesn't want it. What wingnuts don't realize is that abortion after fertilization is pretty common place with implantation inhibiting contraceptives such as the morning after pill. So they're as likely to be "aborting" viable embryos.