This isn't scary. Presidents have long had opinions which clash with the Supreme Court and have supported efforts to better align the court with public oppinion

This isn't scary. Presidents have long had opinions which clash with the Supreme Court and have supported efforts to better align the court with public oppinion. For example, FDR did this to get Social Security through. There's really nothing to stop the Supreme Court from being wrong, from making bad decisions, from having a makeup which does not reflect the liberal/conservative makeup of the US public, and from making rulings down party lines. All of which will cause it to fail to correctly interpret the constitution. Pretending that none of those things can happen and that the court is infallible for all time is a far more scary thing. Unless you want to bring back Prohibition? We're talking about two very dubious rulings here, which are in need of being revisited and there's absolutely no harm in doing so. Indeed it is quite normal to do so; the court has reversed many incorrect decisions in the past. They've also upheld decisions. What matters is not that a decision is reached but that the right decision is reached. Unless you think it doesn't matter whether or not the constitution is correctly interpreted?