I’m not an expert on Constitutional law, but it’s time we laypeople begin to have a say.  Especially when a Supreme makes specious arguments.  So if I’m in error, please, my many lawyer friends, set me straight. 

How can neutrality mean letting governments, State and National, decide what the Constitution prohibits governments from doing?  If the precedent establish in Rowe v Wade was a right to abortion, under the Constitution, and the precedent has been affirmed over time, then you can’t say the Court must be neutral in the sense of not enforcing the Constitution.  You can contest the right under the Constitution, but interpreting the Constitution has been the Court’s responsibility ever since the Marshall Court.  You can’t say both that this is a right under the Constitution and that Court should be neutral. 

How is this different from the pre-Civil War debates?  The States reserve to themselves the right to interpret the Constitution?  Slavery in some States and in others not?  I suppose the underlying Constitutional issue is over the extent of implied rights.  But if so, then say it, own it.  Not this neutrality B.S.