Assignment task:
Consider a situation where you were a US Supreme Court justice, and one of the Court's past precedents, Smith v. Jones, was very much against your personal policy preferences. The Smith precedent was weakened in a later case, Johnson v. Brown, but not overturned. The state of Texas passes a statute that clearly conflicts with these precedents-that is, you like the Texas policy, but it goes against precedent. A Texas citizen, Pat Williams, files suit seeking to have the Texas law invalidated. Williams is not directly impacted by the Texas law, but asserts a general interest in ensuring his state government is not enforcing unconstitutional laws.
Suppose most other members of the Court oppose the Texas law and like the Smith/Johnson precedents; your preferences are in the minority. How would you try to convince them not to rule in Williams favor?
Now consider the case where most other members of the Court support the Texas law and dislike the Smith/Johnson precedents; your preferences are in the majority. What would your options be in that scenario?
If you were writing an opinion for the majority upholding the Texas law, what are ways you could discuss the past precedents?