Which is still 184 years after the date you claimed the U.S. stopped advancing its definitions of social mores — nearly 3/4 of the country’s lifespan.No significant amendment to the US constitution has occurred in 51 years
That’s not “very clear” at all. The original Roe decision hinged on a pretty imaginative interpretation of the 14th amendment, which may very well have been a technically incorrect decision from a legal perspective. And the 9th amendment doesn’t grant any specific rights, it simply makes it clear that not enumerating a right in the constitution doesn’t mean that it’s automatically unprotected by federal law. It’s a “don’t infer” clause, not a “we confer” clause.And with the recent draft decision that will overturn Roe v. Wade, it is very clear that the 5 conservative judges on the SCOTUS are rejecting the concept of a living Constitution, and indeed, the 9th Amendment, and want to revert to the originalist interpretation of the Constitution. If it doesn't say it, it can't possibly exist.
I don’t personally like the idea of rolling back federal protection for abortion rights, but that doesn’t mean that the legal basis for it was valid in the first place, or that overturning it is incorrect. The Supreme Court usually overturns at least one of its own decisions each year, so this is nothing new, and further undermines your ludicrous suggestion that U.S. social law is still stuck in 1787.
Hilarious that you throw down blatantly incorrect statements for the purpose of dramatic verbal posturing, then characterize any correction of them as pedantry. Perhaps if you dialed back on the hyperbole you’d get something closer to the conversational flow you’re hoping for.I won't assume you can move along with the flow of discussion and points without pedantry.