Well, if it the Constitution you are on about, then you are wrong. The Constitution gives the courts authority to interpret the Constitution. To check and balance that power, the Constitution gives the legislative and executive branches other powers, and the people the power to amend the Constitution. Since there is no groundswell of either the executive or legislative branches nor the people in general clamering for a Constitutional amendment, there is NO Constitutional crisis, and therefore the interpretation of the Court stands on valid Constitutional grounds.
Now you have a different opinion but if your complaint is solely along Constitutional grounds, you are mistaken. You may have religious or ideological reasons -- but that is different than Constitutional reasons.
Actually you are the one who is mistaken. There is no consitutional right to privacy. My views on the act in question aren't relevant to a constitutional discussion. (but if you must know I think it's vile, immoral and disgusting.)
You cannot be serious. The ability to interpret the constitution is not a license to rewrite (or ignore the clear meaning of) the constitution. And yes it is possible for the Court to ignore constitution. And it doesn't have to be a "crisis" if the court ignores the constitution. If the court ignores the constitution to pander to public opinion, then there would not be any great outcry. If you recall this decision reverses a decision the court made 18 years ago. So unless we amended the constitution in the last 18 years, one of these two decisions has to unconstitutional.