Sorry, but the theocrat justices on the court are all liars who were confirmed by Republicans who knew damned well they were lying - they were nominated specifically because they'd been hand-picked and coached by Christian Nationalists who sought to overrule Roe.
Amy Coney Barrett (2020): “Roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that does not mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn’t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. The Board that no one questions anymore”
Brett Kavanaugh (2018): “It is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times,” Kavanaugh said of Roe. “It is not as if it is just a run of the mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent.”
Neil Gorsuch (2017): Roe is "a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court" "reaffirmed by several subsequent cases." “Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law. What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward,”
Samuel Alito (2006): the legitimacy of the court would be undermined “in any case if the Court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion.”
Clarence Thomas (1991): Stated he did not have “a personal opinion on the outcome in Roe v. Wade.”
John Roberts Jr. (2005): Overruling precedent like Roe is “a jolt to the legal system” and that “precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness.” “It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn’t answer the question. It just poses the question. And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments. All of those factors go into the determination of whether to revisit a precedent under the principles of stare decisis,”
