|
In the late 1890's, the SCOTUS decided in Plessy V Ferguson, that segregation was constitutional. That remained "the law of the land" for about 50 years.
Then in 1954, SCOTUS essentially overturned Plessy V Ferguson in the case of Brown V Board Of Education, which paved the way to end segregation.
Should the SCOTUS in 1954 have automatically sided with precedent, and left segregation as the law of the land? Were they wrong to ignore precedent and overturn a decision they thought was wrong on the law?
Or are there cases where the court can/should throw out precedent and leave it in the ash heap of history, because previous justices were simply wrong?
|
Threaded Mode