From same guy who wrote the previous one. I asked if precedent and establish law are the same thing. A little inflammatory but are you buying what he's saying here?
No. It's all the same; "precedent" is just a case that is still good law ie has not yet been overturned. Every Supreme Court precedent has to be followed by every lower court and no Supreme Court precedent is binding on the Supreme Court, although they will give past opinions different levels of deference based on a variety of factors (and the draft opinion goes through this laboriously). The folks acting like Kavanaugh and Trump's other appointees "lied" because they said Roe and Casey are "precedents" or "settled law" or whatever are either ignorant or being purposely misleading. Generally if you hear something like "established law" you can just assume the person is a gasbag. Ask the folks who say that every opinion ever authored by RBG or Sotomayor, no matter how recent, is "settled law" whether they also think DC v. Heller or Citizen United v. FEC is "settled law" immune to reconsideration. You'll likely end up with a bunch of stammering and a change of subject.
No, they lied. A few things.... when a law has been upheld in numerous cases, and the law has come to be relied on by society, that law is considered 'settled'. SCOTUS historically has never overturned settled law unless they believe that the decision is, as stated in this case 'egregiously decided'. This is why the opinion claims that Roe was fatally and egregiously flawed. Alito went so far as to compare it to Plessy v. Ferguson. IF they believed that was true and did not state that at their confirmation hearing, they are liars. Period, end of story.