[PaulDavisThe1st]

Somebody has to bring a new case that presents a novel legal theory/presentation that isn't clearly addressed by the ruling that forms the precedent.

[djoldman]

Additionally, one can argue that the state of the world has changed enough that assumptions made by the USC at the time of precedence require reversal.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

only in a new case ....

[sdenton4]

The court is stacked with so called originalists - history stopped in the eighteenth century.

[franga2000]

idk, they wouldn't have given the president nearly absolute immunity back then..

[IAmBroom]

Yes, they are insincere "originalists". This is known.