Several have.
Which ones are the lawyers?
I’m glad I misinterpreted, because he only mentioned that the judges were socially conscious Catholics, and left out the part about that overriding their judicial responsibilities.
BTW, I dit not mean to belittle the answers given so far (thanks to John Mace, Marley23, and Martin Hyde for their answers).
I was just curious what a lawyer like Bricker might say about this. Apologies if any of the above are lawyers.
It seems that you are suggesting that being Catholic can have no impact on a person’s judicial philosophy.
–Cliffy
Can you guys please start a separate thread debating whether “Being Catholic can have an impact on a person’s judicial philosophy”?
It’s been done before. And no shocker that it was Evil Captor who started that thread…
Since we’re talking about mechanics and not philosophy, I doubt **Bricker **would disagree with **Hamlet **or Gadarene.
Unfortunately, neither Hamlet nor Gadarene have answered the questions in the OP.
I think most of the questions in the OPhave been answered above, but I’m happy to take another run at them.
They will need to wait until a case reaches them that deals with the issue. That is, they cannot simply call a press conference and declare, “We’ve been kicking this around over lunch the past couple of days, and we’ve decided Roe sucks.” So they’d need some state supreme court or one of the federal circuits to rule on a case that hinged on the Roe or Casey decision, and they’d need the losing side in that case to ask for cert. They’d grant cert, hear the case, and announce an opinion that said, “Roe v. Wade, to the extent that it’s inconsistent with what we announce today, is hereby overturned.”
Sure. They could re-interpret issues having to do with viability, point to the changing technology, and say in effect that Roe was right for the facts that existed in the 1970s, but now new medical technology compels the following conclusions: blah, blah, blah.
Every time a decision is explicitly overturned, I suppose they are “admitting” it was wrong. They do not say, “Boy, the jokers that sat on the bench when this case was decided were a bunch of idiots,” though, if that’s the level of admission you’re looking for.
Unless Scalia’s writing for the majority, of course. 
Damn, you beat me to that!
Ah, Justice Scalia…the only man alive who can write a scathing concurrence.
OK, so the “new technology” or “new scientific facts” angle might be used, but I assume that there are other angles.
For example, when Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka overturned Plessy v Ferguson, I don’t think they used the argument of “new facts not existing during the previous decision” (or did they?)
What justification did they use in that case?
And, is it true that if you don’t cite new facts not existing during the previous decision, then you are, de facto, saying that the previous decision was simply wrong?
They did, actually. Plessy had said that states could have seperate facilities for whites and non-whites, so long as those facilities were otherwise equal. In Brown, Warren’s decision talked about how modern psychology has shown that nonwhite students in segregated schools feel inferior and don’t learn as well, so modern psychology has shown that segregated schools can never be equal.
That’s interesting.
So, are there any examples of overturning Supreme Court decisions without using the “new facts” argument?
Being a socially conservative Catholic JUST MIGHT have some relevance to one’s opinion on abortion cases. Or has PC started to demand that our brains not function?
If you are curious how the Supreme Court might word an opinion overturning a previous Supreme Court decision, here is how they did it in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986):
Well, I just figured that, being such briliant jurists and all, they could easily find a way to allow their prejudices to override their judicial responsibilities without it being too screamingly obvious. I mean, there’s a REASON they value judicial ability on the court, right?
So, if they reaffirm Roe v. Wade, they are exercising their “judicial responsibilities”. But if they overturn it, they are allowing their “prejudices” to override.
'Cause people who want to retain Roe v. Wade don’t have prejudices on the issue.