If they are to overturn something decided so long ago, it seems they might start flipping other decisions.
Using SCOTUS was a hack by the activists at time.
Make it a federal law or constitutional amendment if it is so popular and important. Both are much harder to repeal.
If it was weak or wrong decision (not from moral but from judical point) - it should be removed and done right.
The people who removed it have no interest in doing it right.
Or is this sarcasm?
Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing: "It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."
Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing: "I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."
I guess you'll have to forgive me if I say that I don't put a ton of weight into what the justices claim, and I think that time will probably bear out that my opinion is the correct one if we revisit this in a few years' time.
"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis" - I'm no expert, but according to Wikipedia: "A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts."
So I suspect they said "settled as a precedent" knowing that settled and reaffirmed precedents have the possibility of being overturned while still following "principles of stare decisis".