[vannevar]

I was referring specifically to striking down long-standing precedents that endorsed mechanisms like SEC enforcement, and interpreting a right of privacy. What we're seeing is a dramatically stripped-down view of the Constitution. If it were being done as part of a broad social consensus that included a plan to revamp the Constitution to meet modern needs, it would be difficult but beneficial in the long run. But what's happening is more akin to tearing down your own house while you're living in it, with no plan for how to rebuild it.

[beerandt]

You say tearing down, I say reverting tacky renovations that clash with the intended architectural style.

The structural bones of the constitution itself remain strong, and are made more resilient by removing ad-hoc modifications currently straining that framework beyond its intended yielding limits.

[vannevar]

The framing of a house is strong, too, but you can't live in it. Our society and economy are mind-boggling complex compared to the state they were in 1789. Whether you liked the renovations or not is immaterial, they serve a function. Unless you have a plan to replace that function (other than just hand-waving "send it all to the courts"), it will be a disaster.