Opinion of the Court
under law." Id., at 562 (Harlan, J., dissenting). It was "egregiously wrong" on the day it was decided, see Ramos, supra (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 7), and as the Solicitor General agreed at oral argument, it should have been overruled at the earliest opportunity, see Oral Arg. Tr. 92:20–93:17.
Roe was also egregiously wrong and deeply damaging. For reasons already explained, Roe's constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.
Roe was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided, and Casey perpetuated its errors, and the errors do not concern some arcane corner of the law of little importance to the American people. Rather, wielding nothing but "raw judicial power," Roe, 410 U. S., at 222 (White, J., dissenting), the Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people. Casey described itself as calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the state's interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who dissented in any respect from Roe. "Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since." Casey, 505 U. S., at 995–996 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Together, Roe and Casey represent an error that cannot be allowed to stand.
As the Court's landmark decision in West Coast Hotel illustrates, the Court has previously overruled decisions that
