[jkic47]

That was actually addressed on Page 7 of the decision.

They begin with "The stare decisis considerations most relevant here—“the quality of [the precedent’s] reasoning, the workability of the rule it established,..." and proceed to find the considerations "all weigh in favor of letting Chevron go"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

If you read the decision on abortion, you will find they spend significant time arguing that stare decisis underpinning Roe v Wade is not valid.

[philips]

Arguing stare decisis was invalid when the reasoning behind even hearing the case is ideological was necessary- it essentially is the only reasoning they could make.

[lesuorac]

Do keep in mind Roe didn't have standing.

There's no harm from denying somebody an abortion when they're not pregnant.

[injb]

So what though? I don't know exactly the reasoning for standing requirements, but they clearly weren't intended to prevent suits over things that affect millions of people in exactly the same way. I mean, standing would prevent man from suing to overturn a ban on women voting, but that's clearly a bug, not a feature.

[lesuorac]

My point is that you can find evidence for any outcome. The Supreme Court has a stance they like and backpedal to make the argument for it leading to inconsistent rulings.

There are a myraid of ways that roe vs wade could've turned out and in the final ruling document they'd all fit the correct format.

[jellicle]

Roe was pregnant.

[lesuorac]

_was_ not _is_.

> [2] McCorvey gave birth to a daughter at Dallas Osteopathic Hospital on June 2, 1970

At that point she lost standing similar to another Jane Doe whose case became moot because she already had the abortion [1] and the desired action (injunction against an abortion) is irrelevant because it's already happened.

[1]: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-issues-dec...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#History_of_abortio...