While I sort of agree with Alito when it comes to new issues that he needs to vote based on his best view of the case, I totally disagree with him when it comes to overturning precedents and throwing out stari decisis. He is just asserting that all the Repub Justices who voted for those precedents were totally wrong when they voted in what Alito asserts was an agregiously wrong way.
Besides which, those 3 to 5 all stated under oath to get that lifetime job that they would not think like that. And then the 1st chance they got, they did think like that. They should be impeached. Convicted. And, replaced.
Or, since that is impossible, the court should be unpacked.
'Unpacked' is a bit *vague*, though -- you're suggesting *reformism* of some kind, as though a little turn of a screw or bolt here or there would put everything back as it should be.
*I* happen to read this treatment as 'justices can be reactionary idealists once appointed, if they like', so obviously it's a *systemic* issue. I don't think there's any real reformist way-forward at this point, despite your vague reformist sentiments.
It's a *class institution*, representing *class* interests, to oppress women (etc.), so there has to be a *class* response -- anything else now, as from international populist movements, is just too lacking for historically-underdeveloped countries, and now demonstrably for the U.S. as well. (Banana-republic-type realities in the First World.)
History, Macro-Micro -- simplified