It's true that Alito dissented in Casey, but in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, Alito voted with the majority to strike down New Jersey's partial birth abortion ban. The reason for that is Alito apparently accepts Roe as settled precedent.
I know conventional wisdom is that he "had to" follow precedent, but that's not really accurate. If that were the case, few new precedents could be set, and Plessy v. Ferguson would be followed today. Precedents often begin at the lower courts, without deference to higher court rulings. If no one in the lower courts challenges the merits of Roe V. Wade, the Supreme Court will never have the opportunity to overturn Roe.
Lower courts must rule according to the Constitution, not case law. Supposing a precedent violates the Constitution, it follows that the judge is required by the same judicial review principle articulated in Marbury V. Madison to reject it and follow the Constitution, no matter which court he serves on.
I just want to understand Alito's legal mind independently of the nickname.
This one? -> Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
PORITZ, C.J.In this appeal plaintiffs challenge a state statute that conditions a minor's right to obtain an abortion on parental notification unless a judicial waiver is obtained, but imposes no corresponding limitation on a minor who seeks "medical and surgical care [otherwise] related to her pregnancy or her child." ...
JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, and LONG join in CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ's opinion. JUSTICE O'HERN filed a separate dissenting opinion in which JUSTICE VERNIERO joins. JUSTICE VERNIERO filed a separate dissenting opinion.
I don't see Alito's name in there, but the case is parental notification, not PBA ban.