The fact that the people of this country are so split over Roe v. Wade goes against your argument that there is "no argument" as to whether some interpretations are valid. Now, you could trot out the elitist argument that the people who support Roe v. Wade are fools, but that really doesn't get you anywhere.
So, you are basically saying that any government official is free to interpret the Constitution as he see fit.
Perhaps you are saying that the President gets the final say.
Okay, following that line of reasoning, Al Gore would be President now since Bill Clinton could have had the final say in 2000 as to the whole election mess.
Work for you?
This comment is moral relativism. The people do not decide what is constitutional unless they can pass an amendment - the Constitution does, and the Constitution is clear. Life trumps privacy. There is no right to privacy. And today, more Americans oppose abortion than support it.
Again, show me these rights in the Constitution - court rulings must rely on one thing and one thing only - the Constitution.
No, they take an oath to defend and protect it, and in order to do so, they must read the plain language and interpret it plainly without inserting their cultural, moral, or legal agenda. How hard is that? The Constitution does not mean anything a corrupt judge says it means - it means what it means.