But whether the SCOTUS judges should write wholesale changes to the scope of the Constitution or rights that drift away from the original intent? That certainly is a matter for debate and thinking about implications.
There is a mechanism for changing the Constitution, amendments. Why should certain topics, if they rise to the level of "should have been an amendment passed by the people", be imposed by the justices?
What if the Constitution envisions that judges should interpret ambiguities at the margin, and not create whole new rights that drift from the fundamental codebase, if you will?
And then on top of that, if some new right involves significant social questions and implications, why should 9 justices (legal professionals) be the ones to say what the answer is?
As you said, these are open for adjustment. But whether the rights you seek should be created by justices versus the democratic process I think I differ with. Or at least, I see the logic of the more conservative approach to.