Just a note to say that I am tired, bored, and frustrated with headlines like this one: in the NY Times:
The Politicization of the Supreme Court Is Eroding Its Legitimacy
I mean, come on. When was the Supreme Court not political? It is true that much of the Supreme Court's business involves technical legal matters that most Americans don't understand and don't ever think about. A majority of Supreme Court verdicts are unanimous. But on major partisan issues, the court operates as another forum in the ongoing competition over power, and this has always been true.
Was the Dred Scott decision not political? The constitution doesn't say anything about race, but the court somehow found it there.
Anyone remember the huge fights over court challenges to parts of FDR's new deal, which led to the fight over court packing in 1937? Was that not political?
How about Bush v. Gore, which produced a straight partisan split in a case concerning technical points in the administration of election law?
Roe v. Wade was political. Brown v. Board of Education was political. Obergefell v. Hodges was political.
Have Americans ever accepted Supreme Court rulings they disagreed with? Lincoln ran for President with opposition to Dred Scott as a key plank in his platform, and won. Did that "erode the legitimacy" of the court? The Republican Part has officially opposed Roe for 40 years.
You may wish that there was a non-partisan, non-ideological way to interpret the Constitution, but there is not, and I am too much of a post-modernist to think that there ever could be. If you don't like the ruling, fight on, as Americans always have.