"There is no Constitutional right to abort a child or to sodomize your neighbor."
The USSC has never said there were such absolute rights. Both abortion & sodomy can be & are regulated by our States, within the constitutional guidelines of our BOR's.
These "rights" follow logically from the following statement:
"the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
In other words, anything goes.
That is simply a perception, [more hype] about a stupid turn of phrase.
Bruen admits it when he writes:
The Supreme Court has created a perception otherwise, but it was unprincipled in doing so, and we would be justified in tossing it out on its ear. James G. Bruen, Jr. is an attorney.
Bruen is an unprincipled attorney, imo, seeing that he should know that our constitutional principles have not been violated by the court in either case he cites.
-- His hyperbole is irresponsible, and he is close to violating his own oath to protect & defend the US Constitution.
It seems to me that this "stupid turn of phrase" is at the heart of the Roe v. Wade decision, and many SCOTUS decisions since then. The Court doesn't serve the natural law that is written on the human heart and, therefore, doesn't serve a document based on the natural law. It serves no master. It does what it can get away with, particularly regarding morals issues. I think Bruen is correct in this.