It is obvious to the meanest, but still honest, intelligence that Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., which returns the question of abortion to the states, in lieu of an imaginary constitutional right, is correctly decided.  However, because people were focused on the opinion Justice Alito drafted, too few noticed that the Supreme Court's leftist justices (Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) explicitly voided the entire Constitution, stating that it is an invalid document that cannot control either the federal government's structure or the American people's rights.

In 1788, Congress ratified the Constitution; in 1791, it ratified the first ten amendments, which we now know as the Bill of Rights; and in 1868, it ratified the 14th Amendment, from which the leftist Supreme Court justices teased out the oxymoronic concept of "substantive due process."  (The very nature of "process" is that it's not substantive.)

In 1788 and 1791, democracy (either direct or via a republican process) was unknown in most of the world.  To the extent that it existed in the West, it was confined to White men.  The Founders, who thought long and hard about tyranny and individual liberty, came up with the best system they could think of to fight the former and protect the latter.  In the modern era, we all benefit from this optimal system.  The 14th Amendment moved the needle a bit by granting suffrage to Black men, but women remained outside the political system.

What's important to remember when thinking about the Constitution is that its principles exist irrespective of specific rules.  Think of it as the difference between navigating by instructions that tell you to "turn left" or "turn right" at specific intersections versus instructions that tell you to "head north" or "head south" at the same intersections.  Under the first system, if you're facing the wrong way, you're lost.  Under the second system, you will always know in which direction to travel.  The same is true of constitutional principles.  They don't spell out that this rule applies to men and this one does not apply to women or Asians.  Instead, like the compass points, they are overarching ideas that always apply.

But that's not how leftists see the Constitution.  Rather than seeing those optimal, overarching principles of liberty, they see rules that must be folded, spindled, and mutilated to dole out the benefits of liberty to some while denying them to others.  And that gets us to the Dobbs decision.

As you already know, Alito said that, because a "right to abortion" was not "deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition," and is not essential to America's "scheme of ordered liberty," it does not fall within the Constitution's parameters of limited federal government.  Therefore, it belongs to the states.  The concept of "substantive due process" cannot override the Constitution as written.

Image by Andrea Widburg by editing a photo of Gazans burning Mohammed bin Salman's image, by Tasnim News.  CC BY 4.0.

The dissenting justices (Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor), faced with the dismissal of the magic phrase that allowed them to "interpret" the Constitution in alignment with Democrat demands, were outraged.  (These demands, incidentally, were usually the same ones that the people's voice, whether via the ballot box, Congress, or state legislatures, had already rejected.)  Therefore, in a fit of pique, they wrote that the entire Constitution is invalid.  Don't believe me?  Read this, from the dissent:

If the ratifiers did not understand something as central to freedom, then neither can we. Or said more particularly: If those people did not understand reproductive rights as part of the guarantee of liberty conferred in the Fourteenth Amendment, then those rights do not exist. As an initial matter, note a mistake in the just preceding sentence. We referred there to the "people" who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment: What rights did those "people" have in their heads at the time? But, of course, "people" did not ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. Men did.  So it is perhaps not so surprising that the ratifiers were not perfectly attuned to the importance of reproductive rights for women's liberty, or for their capacity to participate as equal members of our Nation.

Indeed, the ratifiers — both in 1868 and when the original Constitution was approved in 1788 — did not understand women as full members of the community embraced by the phrase "We the People."

In other words, say the leftist justices, because only White men ratified the Constitution, which they view as a document of mere rules (and one can always cheat when rules are involved) rather than of universal principles, the Constitution is inapplicable to any people who are not White men.  And once you say that, you have effectively voided the Constitution because a national document cannot be valid if, as the dissent says, its ratification was dishonest and incomplete.  The same justices who swore to uphold the Constitution and whose job is to interpret it invalidated it.