3

For example: Why doesn't a conservative majority SCOTUS repeal Roe v. Wade?

It was originally asked back in 2014, and I think that it was a perfectly reasonable question to ask at the time. But then in 2022, SCOTUS did repeal Roe v. Wade, invalidating the whole premise behind the question.

Should such a question be closed? Or edited to rephrase it in past tense (“Why didn't a conservative majority...”)?

2
  • Related: politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4517/…
    – dan04
    Commented Apr 19, 2023 at 0:49
  • 4
    The premise of that question is not invalidated but rather confirmed. It's a valid question that simply needs to be updated a bit (so that people do not misunderstand it) and get new answers. It's basically become: Why didn't a Republican majority repeal earlier.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Apr 19, 2023 at 6:41

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5

I think we should do what Trilarion already did with the question: Edit it to rephrase it as a historical question.

So a question asking "Why doesn't X do Y?" becomes "Why didn't X do Y before Z?".

Note that a turn of events can also lead to the realization that some of the answers were actually incorrect. Some people might have claimed "Y can never happen because [reason]", but Y eventually happening proved them wrong. That doesn't mean that the answer once was correct and now isn't. It probably means the answer was never correct in the first place. This should be handled as any other incorrect answer: Downvote, point out why it is incorrect in the comments and post a correct answer.

3
  • Does that mean it gets edited again if another ruling comes down that changes it again? Such as X does something that undoes Y and later X does something again that restores Y?
    – Joe W
    Commented Apr 19, 2023 at 13:32
  • 3
    @JoeW You mean if the SCOTUS overturns the overturn of Roe v. Wade again? That still doesn't change the fact that they overturned it in the first place. It might raise a new question why they don't overturn the overturn of the overturn, but that should probably be asked as an entirely new question, because in that hypothetical situation, the circumstances would probably be different.
    – Philipp Mod
    Commented Apr 19, 2023 at 14:02
  • 1
    That might not be the exact case here but I was following your example and keeping it generic. A more concrete example is a law could be declared unconstitutional and later declared constitutional. Personally I don't see that as a good trend to start as this would mean having to update a lot of questions as time changes.
    – Joe W
    Commented Apr 19, 2023 at 15:20
4

You can post a new answer that is updated based on the changed situation. There is nothing else that needs to be done to the question.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .