Well, those of us who believe in a textualist definition of the constitution believe the process for adding constitutional rights is a constitutional amendment and we control the court.
The Continental law is based on another philosophy — you have no rights except the ones that are explicitly given to you by law, and the only way to have more rights passes through the legislature. There are many countries that employ Continental law, but the US is not one of them.
Uhm, no — “precedent” is a judicial decision which may not be grounded on any text whatsoever. It’s a common thing in Common law, and of course it doesn’t exist in Continental law.
Well when your job is to interpret the constitution, it should be grounded on the text. That's why there are textualist who disagree with your interpretation of the role of the court. It is supposed to be the foundation.
--
This country couldn't pass a constitutional amendment making spam calls and email illegal. And didn't pass an equality amendment making women equal.
There is no prior example of a right being conferred and then taken away like this. That the Court now has a 25% approval rating following this past week, which rivals that of Congress, it is deeply delegitimizing to representative democracy that the minority keeps making the rules, and the majority keeps having to acquiesce, per the rules.
In Lincoln's 1st inaugural address he pointed out that in all constitutional disputes, either the majority or minority must acquiesce, or the government ceases. The majority can't be expected to suck it up all the time, it's just too obvious we don't have anything approximating a representative democracy so what's the incentive to acquiesce?