Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
&gt; Given this disagreement, it’s not entirely obvious to me that we should resolve it through the Supreme Court rather than having people debate with each other and vote for legislators who will pass laws that reflect their views.<p>This misunderstands the role of a Constitution. One of the central points of a Constitution is to mark certain things off-limits to democracy. People cannot debate with each other and vote for legislators who will pass laws <i>that are forbidden by the constitution</i>. It doesn&#x27;t matter how many of them want to, or how solid the argument is. The Constitution says &quot;nope, don&#x27;t care, you cannot do that&quot;.<p>Even if every single voter in a state wanted to prevent anyone from ever saying &quot;Turtles Suck!&quot;, the state cannot pass such a law. Even if there is vigorous disagreement over whether or not people should be allowed to say &quot;Turtles Suck!&quot;, the Constitution says &quot;don&#x27;t care. You cannot pass a law prohibiting this.&quot;<p>So in the case discussed at the top of the article, the core question is whether the Constitution allows states to pass laws that ban abortion.<p>Roe said that the Constitution does not allow them to do so, because &lt;reasons&gt; (not meant sarcastically, just not worth enumerating them here).<p>As long as the Constitution is understood in that way, it makes no difference how much debate and disagreement there is about such laws: the Constitution says &quot;you cannot pass laws that function in this way.&quot;<p>Now, of course, currently SCOTUS appears to be ready to present a different understanding of the Constitution in which it does not prevent states from passing laws that ban abortion (or otherwise restrict it). That makes no difference to the central point: if the Constitution is understood to prevent legislation that restricts behavior, the level of disagreement in society about that behavior is of no legal consequence.