Nonsense.
The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴
The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
4.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
The Library of Congress tracks the historic list of overruled Supreme Court cases in its report, The Constitution Annotated. As of 2020, the court had overruled its own precedents in an estimated
232 cases since 1810, says the library.May 3, 2022
A short list of overturned Supreme Court landmark decisions
https://constitutioncenter.org › blog › a-short-list-of-overt..
List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_overruled_Uni...
As of 2018, the
Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases. ... The longest period between the original decision and the overruling decision is ...
Constitutional ·
Article One ·
Statutory ·
Habeas
You wouldn't embarrass yourself so if you had a real education.
While you're right to point out that stare decisis is not unassailable—after all,
Roe v. Wade was just overturned by
Dobbs v Jackson—the Court didn't overrule stare decisis in this case. There has never been a precisely identical question addressed by the Court; however,
Everson v. The Board of Education (1947) serves as the operative stare decisis.
In
Everson, the plaintive argued that a New Jersey statute which reimbursed parents for the cost of busing their children to private schools, secular and parochial, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In its
decidendi the Court held that (1) the statute did not violate the Establishment Clause and that (2) the Establishment Clause applied, not just to the federal government, but also to state and local governments via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the first time the Court applied the Establishment Clause to the governments of the several states.
That part of the ruling was absolutely correct!
The political left, for example, has assailed the right to keep and bear arms at the state level for decades. It’s a good thing when the federal courts require the several states to uphold the Bill of Rights as well, and there was absolutely nothing unconstitutional about New Jersey allocating funds for transporting students to parochial schools, just like it allocated funds to transport students to other private schools and public schools. The plaintive was trying to persuade the Court to exclude students of religious faith from public services provided for all students.
The Court’s expressly stated
ratio decidendi on the question of the case was given in two parts.
The Court held that because the Establishment Clause does not override the Free Exercise Clause “New Jersey cannot . . . exclude individual . . . because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.” In this instance, Justice Black, writing for the majority, meant the general government services associated with things like public sewage, parks, highways, education, transportation; fire and police protection, and so on. The First Amendment “requires the state to be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers.” In other words, the New Jersey statute didn’t provide any special benefits to religious students to which they weren’t entitled as citizens.
