She writes, on pp 1726-27, that "there is little reason to think" that reversals would do the Court's reputation great damage, and specifically cites Roe for evidence that the Court cannot "declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle."
Barrett then says, explicitly, "I tend to agree with those who say that a justice's duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it."
Barrett explicitly writes on p 1735 that Roe has *not* become superprecedent, despite efforts to make it so, and that it "has acquired no immunity from serious judicial reconsideration."
