If your question is why the US Supreme Court would reverse one of its own decisions, there can be a number of reasons for doing so.
Recent Decision
If the decision is recent, and the losing party has 25 days to file a petition with the US Supreme Court for a rehearing of the case. Most petitions for rehearing are denied, but if the Court grants the petition, the case will be docketed for reargument.
The most common reason for granting a rehearing appears to be instances where the lower court decision was affirmed by an equally divided court (tie vote) due to the absence of one of the nine Supreme Court justices. If the Court believes the issue raised is of sufficient importance, they may grant a rehearing, vacate their first default decision, and reconsider the case with all justices present. Under most circumstances, the Court has reaffirmed the decision, allowing the case to set precedent.
Sometimes decisions are reversed due to new evidence being presented, changes to Federal Laws, or a convincing argument made against the first decision.
A search of the Justia Supreme Court database indicates the last time the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider a case under its appellate jurisdiction was 1969; the most recent case reconsidered under original jurisdiction was in 2000.
Decision of an Earlier Court
The US Supreme Court has overturned many of its own precedents over the years, usually involving decisions made by an earlier Court. Reasons are varied but commonly include differences in constitutional interpretation, changes in federal laws, or changes in social conditions since the earlier decision was made.
One classic example is the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, (1954) holding racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, which overturned the 60-year old decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896), holding segregation was constitutional, as long as equal accommodations or facilities were provided.
In Brown, the Warren Court corrected a politically motivated decision made other Supreme Court justices in the 19th century.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
The President (Executive Branch) doesn't have the authority to reverse a Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) decision because such action would violate the separation of powers established by the Constitution. If the President had that kind of "veto authority" over a Supreme Court decision he (or she) would effectively control two branches of the government and would be vested with too much power.
Absolutely, yes. The US Supreme Court has overturned many lower court decisions on the basis of unconstitutionality of the law, as written or applied, or something that occurred in the legal process.
The Supreme Court's decision is final, it cannot be "revived" and reheard. However a constitutional amendment that changes the relevant parts of the Constitution would supersede the Supreme Court's decision.
Sometimes. If the Supreme Court decision interprets a statute or common law, it can be overturned by a legislative statute to the contrary. However, if the Supreme Court decision is interpreting constitutional law, a constitutional amendment would be required to overturn the decision.
what reporter would you find apublished illinois supreme court decision
Frederick Douglass however believed that the supreme court decision would actually hasten the end of slavery.
Certain cases are important enough to require the authoritative decision of the nation's highest court rather than being decided by a lower court. If issues of constitutional interpretation are involved, that is the specialty of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court (or any other court) is very unlikely to reverse prior case law decisions. However to directly answer your question, decisions by court of any kind are "final" and require no ratification by anyone. Court decisions may be challenged by new legislation or Constitutional Amendments that try to modify the laws that the court's decisions originally addressed. The court might then have to decide on the new laws and/or amendments, but this would be a new court decision.
The Supreme Court determines what contradicts the Constitution. So it supposedly isn't possible for them to rule against it. If people don't like the decision of the Supreme Court, they can pass laws and/or amend the Constitution to change it. Congress would be who would overrule it, particularly members who were there when they passed whatever law. The Court is not allowed to put words in the mouth of Congress.
ignoring the bill
Jackson ignored Worcester v. Georgia. This was significant because Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's decision which said that Georgia couldn't make laws that broke the terms on the authority of which the Cherokee's have the right to govern themselves on. Many people ask can he ignore the Supreme Court? Or, Why didn't the Supreme Court do anything about it? And do you know what I would say. idk. :)
The Court Clerk would have them, newspapers, or you can look on the website below.