When I read something like this I am inclined to dismiss everything they say because of the exaggeration (emphasis added):
In overruling Roe v. Wade, and with it nearly 50 years of American law, and expanding the reach of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which is a jurisprudential innovation of more recent vintage, the Supreme Court wants the public to accept that history rules the present — and that our founding charter, which is hailed as a beacon of liberty pointing to a more perfect union, reflects rules set in stone that no judge should dare disturb.
This is just one example from the article.
I almost want to scream at them:
Judges must interpret the law as written! They don’t get to change it.
If the constitution needs to be changed to allow a new law, or strike down an existing one, then there is a process to change the constitution. USE IT! Do not expect judges to be some sort of super legislators.