America’s propaganda media have used a litany of dishonest smears to try and undermine the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. And if you weren’t already convinced that these attacks are bogus, a newly released study just sent one of them through the paper shredder.
The analysis published Wednesday by the Pew Research Center examined how often the high court overturns its past decisions. These rulings carry significant weight throughout the American legal system and establish guidance for lower courts on how to handle specific issues as they come before the judiciary.
With its conservative majority, the current Supreme Court has overturned several long-standing precedents in recent years that have often produced outcomes in accordance with the Constitution and existing law. The most notable example of this was the court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning the precedent first established in Roe v. Wade (1973) that invented a so-called “constitutional right” to abortion.
Antithetical to their policy agenda, media content creators and their leftist allies have used these originalist decisions to try and foment controversy around the court where there is none. More specifically, they’ve sought to deceive Americans into believing that the conservative justices are overturning precedent at an alarming rate, and in a way that threatens the Constitution and rule of law.
“The court’s major rulings in the term that just ended continued to defy precedents and expand its power versus the president and Congress,” one Los Angeles Times columnist wrote in 2023.
“Supreme Court’s staggering deviation from precedent,” a 2021 CNN article headline blares.
So, are the media right? Is the Supreme Court defying history and throwing precedent into the wind without a second thought? According to Pew, the answer is a resounding “no.”
Using data from the Library of Congress and Pennsylvania State University’s Supreme Court Database, the study found that from the time John Roberts was appointed as chief justice in 2005 to the high court’s recent 2024-2025 term, “only 21 of 1,471 rulings … overturned one or more earlier decisions.” For all you math wizards out there, that’s 1.4 percent.
What’s equally remarkable is that percentage is less than those of Supreme Courts that preceded it.
From 1985-2005, a time in which William Rehnquist mostly served as chief (starting in 1986), the court overturned 2 percent of its previous precedents, according to Pew. The 20 years preceding that (1965-1984), when Warren Burger (1969-1986) and Earl Warren (1953-1969) served as chiefs, saw a slightly higher percentage at 2.1 percent.
“Since the Supreme Court’s founding in 1789 through its most recent full term in 2024, fewer than 1% of all rulings (236 of 29,202) have overturned an earlier high court decision,” the Pew analysis concluded.
But let’s pretend for a minute, that for the first time in their pathetic careers, these fake journalists were right. That the current Supreme Court was overturning precedent at a higher rate than past ones.
Why should that matter so long as the new rulings are in accordance with the Constitution?
It’s a key point Justice Clarence Thomas addressed while speaking at a public forum last year. Discussing the subject of stare decisis, the Bush 41 appointee argued that the high court should not blindly follow existing precedents without first considering whether they abide by America’s founding document.
“I don’t think that I have the gospel,” Thomas said, “that any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel, and I do give perspective to the precedent. But it should — the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country, and our laws, and be based on something, not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
The remarks were similar to those the justice separately gave in 2013. When asked if stare decisis “doesn’t hold much force” for him, he said, “Oh, it sure does. But not enough to keep me from going to the Constitution.”
And therein lies the chief reason behind the left’s “The sky is falling!” narrative surrounding Supreme Court precedent. Many of the past decisions being overturned by the current court — whether it be Roe or Chevron deference — were terrible rulings that left-wing judicial activists “dreamt up” and did not comport with the Constitution.
The left no longer controls SCOTUS, and thus, can’t use it as an avenue to enshrine its radical agenda into law via activist decisions. So, now they are doing everything they can to undermine the court’s conservative majority — the facts be damned.