Sure. When prior decisions are “unworkable or are badly reasoned,” then the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, and this is “particularly true in constitutional cases.” [0] But the prior decision was certainly workable, since it had been working for almost 50 years. And it certainly wasn’t too badly reasoned, since the same reasoning was applied to many other cases — situations which also were quite workable, since they were an expansion of rights, not a circumscription of them. If anything, the court created an unworkable situation by ruling the way it did; it has created chaos in the medical field for half of the states.

[0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

There are plenty of constitutional scholars (many who are liberal and pro-choice) who believe Roe v Wade was badly reasoned like Akhil Reed Amar.