Liberal justices rationalizing bad Constitutional law

 Washington Examiner:

To listen to the liberal justices, one would think the Supreme Court’s job is not to uphold the Constitution but to maintain “public support.”

Their boasted concern for the court’s reputation should be largely irrelevant in decision-making other than in presuming they will be supported widely if they act in good faith interpreting the law. Filtering constitutional jurisprudence through public relations concerns is improper. It undermines the very Constitution the justices are sworn to uphold.

Yet, repeatedly during oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case on Mississippi’s new law restricting abortions, liberal justices harped on how overruling the “super case … the rare case, the watershed cases” of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey could be “what kills us as an American institution.”

All three phrases quoted above first came from remarks and questions from Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondered whether the Supreme Court will “survive the stench that this creates in the public perception” that the court has been politicized. Justice Elena Kagan worried about what people would be “thinking” about the high court.

These concerns amount to a misapplication of Chief Justice John Roberts’s stated preference for bolstering the Supreme Court’s “credibility and legitimacy” by favoring narrower legal decisions that can secure near-unanimity rather than more sweeping rulings that split it 5-4 along ideological lines. Even that preference of Roberts is problematic, for it can leave key constitutional questions unanswered longer than necessary. At least, though, Roberts's predilection for delaying big constitutional concerns does not extend to making “credibility” superior to the Constitution’s text.

...

The court should do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.  As a matter of Constitutional law, there is no basis for the Roe v. Wade decision.  Since it is not constitutional for the court to uphold a flawed decision the question of the legality of abortion should be left to the states.   Since the court could not find anything in the text of the constitution to support their decision they claimed to find it in the "penumbra" which is a reference to the margins of the document.  That is just made-up BS.