@Oceander In the case you claim to have read, this paragraph summarizes your argument in part:
Whether or not we would agree with Miranda’s reasoning
and its resulting rule, were we addressing the issue in the
first instance, the principles of stare decisis weigh heavily
against overruling it now. . . . While “ ‘stare decisis is
not an inexorable command, . . . particularly when we are
interpreting the Constitution, . . . “even
in constitutional cases, the doctrine carries such persuasive
force that we have always required a departure from
precedent to be supported by some ‘special justification.’ â€
Note how it describes
stare decisis as a persuasive force, but not an inexorable command. It also argues that a departure from it should be supported by some special justification.
With this case, there is no special justification, nor should there be since it was never a challenge to Miranda, but instead a case on whether Miranda could be overturned by Congressional action. This is distinctly different from Roe, where medical advances more than suffice for special justification.
From a legal standpoint, Dickerson is an extremely poor choice for upholding the Constitutionality of Roe. It smacks of desperation for someone with no other avenues. As Justice Rehnquist stated:
No constitutional rule is immutable,
and the sort of refinements made by
such cases are merely a normal part
of constitutional law.
