Frank the Great said:
According to JayDub, there is no such thing as interpreting the Constitution. There is only reading.
The Supreme Court should not engage in projecting its political values as law.
A significant difference between my values and those of the liberal progressive is that I do not want the Supreme Court acting unilaterally without Constitutional support to promote said values.
To wit: I do not want the Supreme Court pushing laissez faire capitalism, as it did in the Lochner Era, despite the fact that I agree wholeheartedly with laissez faire capitalism.
I also do not want the Supreme Court to ban abortion, though abortion is a social evil at least on par with slavery, and it should be banned, as slavery was, but justly, with an amendment (as slavery was).
The Supreme Court needs to be reigned in with Textualists / Originalists, stare decisis be damned. The matter belongs to the states, as per the 10th Amendment. The Roe decision was, flat out, an abuse of the Supreme Court's authority.