with care. and that's why i said that. if you have anything to add to my plea to read it, please do. >> i agree completely and read the pages and reread them many times and it is another key distinction from the cases justice kavanaugh was referring to. that is as i understand the passages in casey the court carefully walked through each and every stare decisis factor this court focuses on. workability of the viability rule. legal and factual development and critical reliance interest and down the line found the case for reaffirming roe was overwhelming. in that situation when every factor the court consults to determine whether to retain precedent counsel is in favor of retaining it, i think casey properly perceived that a decision to overrule nevertheless based on the conclusion the justices thought the case was wrongly decided in the first instance would run counter to the ability of stare decisis to function as a cornerstone of the rule of law in this context.