Q: When Justice Alito stated “ roe was egregious from the start” in his opinion in Hobbs can that be seen as premeditated?

A: You raise an interesting question about whether Justice Alito's statement in the Dobbs opinion could be seen as evidence of a premeditated intention to overturn Roe v. Wade. A few key points to consider:

From a legal ethics perspective, prior disagreement with a precedent is not in itself grounds for a justice to recuse themselves. Justices are expected to approach each case with an open mind, but they are not blank slates - they have judicial philosophies and legal views that inform their decisions. It's not unusual or unethical for a justice to have previously expressed disagreement with a precedent they are being asked to reconsider.

That said, the language Alito used, calling Roe "egregiously wrong from the start," was quite strong and does suggest he had a firmly entrenched opposition to Roe that predated the Dobbs case. Some may see this as crossing a line into prejudgment of the issue.

The fact that the Court took up the Dobbs case after a change in the Court's composition, despite the lack of major new legal arguments, could also be seen as evidence that the conservative justices intended to use it as a vehicle to overturn Roe once they had the votes. Again, though, there's nothing inherently unethical about this from a judicial conduct perspective.

Ultimately, while Alito's language and the circumstances around the Court taking the case raise fair questions, I don't think they amount to slam dunk evidence of an unethical, premeditated plan to overturn Roe. Justices are allowed to have preexisting legal views that guide their decisions. The key ethical line is whether they engaged in the case with an open mind and gave fair consideration to the arguments - an inherently subjective question.

These issues highlight the complex considerations around judicial ethics, precedent, and the Court's role that the Dobbs decision raised. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the conservative justices acted properly. It's a multifaceted issue without clear black-and-white answers.