Thread by @MikeSacksEsq

2005: Then-GOP Sen. Specter at then-Judge Roberts' confirmation hearing described Roe as a "superduper precedent." As proof, he made a chart of 38 times Roe was reaffirmed.

2020: Judge Barrett & Senate Rs say all those challenges mean it's not even a "super precedent."

1) Don't call precedents "superduper" or "super." It's dumb.

2) Roberts totally dodged the question.

3) In 2010, Roberts laid out his formula for overturning precedent in his Citizens United concurrence to the majority's doing just that.

4) It's the Roe reversal blueprint.

Alito cited Roberts' Citizens United concurrence 4 times when the Court's conservative majority overturned a 40-year-old precedent they themselves spent 6 years pretty much sua sponte weakening it

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1011977929583185921

In other words, all it takes to satisfy the criteria for reversing a precedent, as "codified" in Roberts' Citizens United concurrence, is a majority of justices putting in the concerted effort to do weaken the precedent themselves.

But note that a two-step (or, in Abood's case, a four-step) towards weakening then overturning precedent seems only to apply to those precedents sustained by a (popular) political valence.

Not so with, say, sovereign immunity.

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1127945407135387648?s=20

Should Dems take back the Court, either by packing or conservative members' mortality, I suspect they'd just straight-up reverse Citizens United, Gonzales v. Carhart, Shelby County, etc., while limiting Heller to its facts, should new laws be passed to challenge those precedents.

And how fast a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS majority goes towards reversing Roe will depend on whether there are 5 votes to immediately do so when question is squarely presented to them, or if 2-3 justices feel compelled to go step-by-step as not to incite a public backlash or a pack.