that s what the electorate is, perception is king. it s likely what happened in texas related to abortion. if it was any issue is issuprem court had precedent in, they would have sought to uphold it. while it was still the law of the land, no one but the court should be able to interfere. when you saw the end run around the precedent in texas, you had more than enough clues to suggest this area would be part of the legacy where they would say, hold on a second. i guess the precedent is only good as the curious or savvy legislative branch which is now how it s intended to be. given the perception of the court, there s this notion that you can over turn precedent that is allowed if it s wrongly decided. i point to plessy, decision