Linda Greenhouse asks what became of the "respect for precedent" that both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito paid homage to during their confirmation hearings.

Both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. assured their Senate questioners at their confirmation hearings that they, too, respected precedent. So why were they on the majority side of a 5-to-4 decision last week declaring that a 45-year-old doctrine excusing people whose “unique circumstances” prevented them from meeting court filing deadlines was now “illegitimate”? It was the second time the Roberts court had overturned a precedent, and the first in a decision with a divided vote. ...

Sometimes the court overrules cases without actually saying so. Some argue that this is what happened in April, when a 5-to-4 majority upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act without making much effort to reconcile that ruling with a decision in 2000 that found a nearly identical Nebraska law unconstitutional.

All judges respect the precedents they like. Many judges are cautious about overruling precedents that have been widely accepted and implemented by lower courts. But precedents that a judge finds suspect, that aren't consistent with a shared (if not widespread) judicial philosophy to which the judge adheres, enjoy less respect, confirmation hearing promises notwithstanding.

What does this portend? Greenhouse takes a guess ...