So it is not increasingly creative interpretations of the Constitution that shed doubt on the Court's legitimacy [1], but rulings that the public disagrees with

So it is not increasingly creative interpretations of the Constitution that shed doubt on the Court's legitimacy [1], but rulings that the public disagrees with. > The issue is not just that a majority of Americans disagree with the ruling, though recent polling tells us that they almost certainly do. This conflates two distinct questions: does the public want abortion to be legal, and does the public think the court has interpreted the law wrong. If one supports abortion, as I do, the way to legalization is to pass laws to that effect. Relying on reinterpretations of existing law is, dare I say, undemocratic, and calling institutions that specialize in interpretation of law illegitimate on the basis of going against popular will is, well, populist. [1] For example, the authors of the 14th Amendment, which was the basis of prohibiting interracial marriage bans, were alive when those marriage bans were in effect. One would think they would have spoken out about how they have just been made unconstitutional. Yet they only figured out this consequence of the 14th Amendment 99 years after its adoption, when all of its authors were conveniently dead.