I don't want to debate this particular decision, but I do want to point out that you're taking some dubious legal concepts for granted. There are opposing lega

I don't want to debate this particular decision, but I do want to point out that you're taking some dubious legal concepts for granted. There are opposing legal philosophies on how to interpret amendments 9 and 10, which say that people have rights and the government has powers. The question is always how to resolve when the two are in conflict. Current SCOTUS majority holds an extremist view that when government exercises an unenumerated power, it essentially cancels the existence of an unenumerated right. That's why they look for historical laws that support their desired outcomes. Until recently, this was a fringe idea because it means the state governments get dibs on your unenumerated rights. You're entitled to your opinion on this approach, but don't expect everyone to take that reasoning seriously.