A number of people on both sides of the issue have noted that the country was on an arc toward more liberal abortion laws before Roe. When SCOTUS steps in and decides issues without a solid Constitutional basis it interferes with the consensus process of democracy and produces division. The same is likely true with the other privacy rulings.
Have some faith in people. Inventing rights and privileges autocratically is definitely problematic in a democracy. It's better to do the work of persuasion. We all have to live together. Note as well, the number of countries who have arrived at gay marriage through legislation rather than judicial fiat. It's a more respectful way to go.
'More respectful'? What was respectful about states denying people the ability to see their partner in the hospital because they have the crime of being gay? Or being denied the ability to participate in basic rights because they're gay?
Or is it just because it doesn't inconvenience you? Like these are all things that are very fresh in the memory of anyone gay that's lived in southern or red states. It's not a democracy if you have a bunch of people you treat as second class citizens.
Majority rule literally the definition of democracy.
This is obviously in conflict with minority rights.
If you care more about minority rights than democracy, fine. Lots of governments have limits on majority rule. The USA constitution is a famous example.
But those limits are limits on democracy. Which make them anti-democratic.
The more strictly you protect minority rights the less democratic your society is.
> It's not a democracy if you have a bunch of people you treat as second class citizens.
That's the purest democracy there is. A direct democracy that let people vote on absolutely anything would always produce that result.
The scotus is still operating in this environment. I don’t see how “fuck it throwing you to the wolves” has any immediate or future benefits?