With all respect for Gerard Bradley, I strongly disagree with his argument that a justice can’t reverse Roe without imposing his own moral predilections. That view appears to depend on an argument that precedent is entitled to considerable weight. That argument is most dubious in the context of constitutional decisions. Any justice with a proper understanding of the judicial role would recognize that to uphold Roe is to violate his oath of office. As I explained in my recent Senate testimony, it’s time for all Americans, no matter what their policy views on abortion, to recognize that abortion policy should be restored to the people.