[oneshot908]

That discussion was reasonably settled a very long time ago and court cases established reasonable laws around it. Then one side demanded a do-over, in much the same way they are seeking do-overs for a lot of previously seemingly settled issues.

[orblivion]

A court decision may settle a working compromise given evidence available at the time and the preferences of the people in the area. I'd say that's a far cry from settling an ethical issue.

[Smithalicious]

Court cases don't settle moral disagreements and moral disagreements are never "settled" in a way that you can accuse some party of "demanding a do-over".

[svieira]

There is a lot of settled law in the history of the USA that shouldn't stand (segregation, suffrage, slavery, extreme methods of execution) no matter how reasonable the various settlements seemed to some at the time of their "settlement".

When an issue will not be settled no matter how reasonable the first party is the second party is either motivated by tyranny or just principles. The former requires force to suppress. The latter cannot be suppressed forever without destroying the goods the first party wishes to preserve.