Well, of late, what was considered settled law is being reinterpreted at a remarkable rate, so maybe there is hope for this 'settled' law to be overturned....
Like what? The big one people always try to bring up when they make coy statements like this is Roe v. Wade but no one thought that was a strong ruling. Even later justices who were strong proponents of women's right to chose like Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought it was a shit ruling.
Roe v Wade and the resulting multi-decade clusterfuck is because your Congress are weak-willed pussies who are unable to actually work through a legislative process to find a consensus.
Yes, it took decades, but in Australia our various states have worked through the "it's criminal" -> "It's criminal but not enforced" -> "we're deliberately vague and won't prosecute doctors" -> "we have a legal framework that makes abortion legal up to {20,22,24} weeks on demand, after which it requires the consensus of two independent medical opinions".
The US needs to do the same. Yes, it will take decades. No, it shouldn't because abortion is a medical procedure, but religion is a scourge.
The Roberts court is nakedly partisan and makes rulings as necessary to expand and protect Republican power (e.g. they protected Trump’s reelection with rulings with carveouts allowing them to decide the other way if a Democratic president tried a similar argument in the future). You should not bet on a reinterpretation of existing law here moving in a direction you’d like.
Interesting. What, then, do you make of the extensive rulings that the current court has issued to block or overturn Trump's actions?
How do you reconcile your 'nakedly partisan' theory with the court rulings that, for example, overruled Trumps attempt to use the AEA for immigration enforcement, overruled his attempt to deploy the National Guard without the consent of state governments, overruled his attempts to unilaterally impose tariffs, overruled his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, and so on?
Note the use of “Republican” in the comment you’re replying to: they are trying to walk a fine line between protecting the guy who gave them the votes needed to do things like Roberts’ career-long goal of rolling back the VRA while protecting the core of the party (e.g. the inconsistent logic used to protect the Federal Reserve, which all of the monied interests wanted, but none of the other independent agencies; or the tariffs, which are deeply unpopular with most businesses) or permanently grant powers they don’t want a Democratic president to use (e.g. deploy the national guard over a governor’s wishes).
Things like birthright citizenship are a good example of that latter concept: the law is extremely clear there so they ruled against him because the only alternative would be declaring outright that the President is not bound by the constitution, but in many other cases they’ve made quite unusual actions to preempt lower courts before either finding a new executive power or, where the law is clear, stalling to allow things like deportations to proceed in the interim before ruling against.
