decided and never been reconsidered, but casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors and decided to reaffirm it. that makes casey a precedent on precedent. another example of that because you might say are there ear che cases like that, miranda. it is reaffirmed a lot but in the dickerson case chief justice rehnquist writes the opinion and reaffirming miranda. even though chief justice rehnquist by the way had been a crit critic, he decided that it had been precedent too long so he reaffirmed it. so precedent on sorry to interrupt but i wat to switch subjects. what would you say your position today is on a woman s right to
precedent. casey specifically reconsidered it, applied those factors and decided to reaffirm it. that makes casey a precedent on precedent. another example of that as you might say are there other cases like that? miranda? so miranda is reaffirmed a lot. in the dickerson case in 2000 chief justice rehnquist writes the opinion considering the factors reaffirming miranda. he had been a critic of miranda throughout his career, he decided it had been settled too long, had been precedent too long and he reaffirmed it. i m sorry to interrupt. i m sorry to interrupt. one last question. what would you say your position today is on a woman s right to choose.
of the mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered. casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the factors, and decided to reaffirm it. that makes casey a precedent on precedent. another example of that, you might say there are other cases like that, miranda. so miranda reaffirmed a lot. in the dickerson case in 2000, chief j the opinion reaffirms miranda. even though the chief justice, by the way, had been a fervent critic of miranda throughout his career, he decided it had been settled too long, been precedent too long, and he reaffirmed it. precedent on what i m sorry to interrupt. sorry to interrupt. i want to switch subjects. one last question. what would you say your position today is on a woman s right to