[standardUser]

"Where in our constitution and laws are these things codified as rights?"

Um, how about Roe v Wade and the TEN times the Supreme Court upheld RvW since it was decided, including as recently as 2016? The court just blew up precedent with a ten ton nuke and you're arguing hey, it was just good jurisprudence!

[andonisus]

Do you understand the difference between the constitution and the courts? The court does not invent rights, nor should it. It is the federal government’s responsibility to codify rights, and it is the courts responsibility to affirm them.

Separate but equal was precedent for a long time as well, would you be arguing the same for that?

[standardUser]

You're ignoring what I said, which is that a right established by the highest court, and ten times affirmed by the highest court, including as recently as 6 years ago, just obliterated that entire history in a ruling that is guaranteed to carry a toll in human health and human lives.

"The court does not invent rights, nor should it."

It has established many specific rights that are not articulated in the Constitution or codified in laws. Most still stand.

"Separate but equal was precedent for a long time as well, would you be arguing the same for that?"

I'm confused, how many vulnerable women died as a result of that?

[andonisus]

> You're ignoring what I said, which is that a right established by the highest court, and ten times affirmed by the highest court, including as recently as 6 years ago, just obliterated that entire history in a ruling that is guaranteed to carry a toll in human health and human lives.

All of this posturing is irrelevant to the fact that the right which was granted did not follow from the arguments being made. Our courts should follow sound reasoning when establishing unenumerated rights. They also should not care about what the impact would be downstream of their decisions; their reasoning should stand on its own.

> It has established many specific rights that are not articulated in the Constitution or codified in laws. Most still stand.

And some no longer do.

> I'm confused, how many vulnerable women died as a result of that?

Impossible to say, but it had to be a non-negligible amount. Either way, that has no bearing on which way the court should rule.

The laws represent the will of the people via their elected representatives. The court adjudicates these laws and their validity as it relates to our constitution.

[standardUser]

"They also should not care about what the impact would be downstream of their decisions; their reasoning should stand on its own."

Do we live in the same reality? As the dissenting justices stated, "The majority's refusal even to consider the life-altering consequences of reversing Roe and Casey is a stunning indictment of its decision."

Judges are not law-interpreting robots and no one ever pretended they are supposed to be (until you I guess). Their decisions impact the health and welfare of hundreds of millions of human beings and to not incorporate that reality into their work would be monstrously inhumane. There is a long history of rulings directly referencing the impact of decisions, to argue otherwise is a lie or disingenuous.