Let's go to the transcript:

DURBIN: Let me just ask you this: John Roberts said that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. Do you believe it is the settled law of the land?

ALITO: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So it's been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions. And I discussed those yesterday.

And it is my -- and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision; sometimes on the merits; sometimes -- in Casey -- based on stare decisis. And I think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis for at least two reasons.

First of all, the more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. Secondly, I think stare decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom embedded in decisions that have been made by prior justices who take the same oath and are scholars and are conscientious. And when they examine a question and they reach a conclusion, I think that's entitled to considerable respect. And, of course, the more times that happens, the more respect the decision is entitled to. And that's my view of that.

So it's a very important precedent...

DURBIN: Is it the settled law of the land?

ALITO: If "settled" means that it can't be reexamined, then that's one thing. If "settled" means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis and all of the factors that I've mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way.

DURBIN: How do you see it?

ALITO: I have explained, Senator, as best I can how I see it. It a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed.

But it is an issue that is involved in litigation now at all levels. There is an abortion case before the Supreme Court this term. There are abortion cases in the lower courts. I've sat on three of them on the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. I'm sure there are others in other courts of appeals or working their way toward the courts of appeals right now. So it's an issue that is involved in a considerable amount of litigation that is going on.

I interpret Judge Alito as saying Roe v. Wade is precedent and entitled to respect, but not necessarily deference. Which means it could be overturned.

Quoting legal scholars, Specter argued that Roe v. Wade amounts to a "super stare decisis" that should not be overturned because Americans have come to rely on it.

"I personally would not get into categorizing precedents as super precedents or super duper precedents," Alito said, referencing a comment Specter made during the John Roberts hearings in which the Pennsylvania senator used the term "super duper" regarding to Roe. "I agree with the underlying thought, that when a precedent is reaffirmed, that strengthens the precedent."

"How about being reaffirmed 38 times?" Specter asked, alluding to what he said is the number of times the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to overturn Roe.

"[E]ach time it is reaffirmed," Alito said, "that is a factor that should be taken into account in making the judgment about stare decisis.

"... Now, I don’t want to leave the impression that stare decisis is an inexorable command, because the Supreme Court has said that it is not."

His refusal to say Roe v. Wade is settled law, when it has been affirmed 38 times since 1973, is beyond troubling since he will become the swing vote for the conservatives on this issue. Leopards don't change their spots.

[Cross-posted at Bush v. Choice.]