I'm trying to convey how legal conservatives think, as someone who is one. I am, on many policy issues, quite liberal. I think rich people should pay more taxes, people should drive EVs, etc. But ultimately I care more about the rules--especially the rules about who makes decisions and where power is allocated--than I do about what people or outcomes. I'd rather see 3C of global warming than administrative agencies operating contrary to the tripartite system of government the Founders designed. I care more about the Constitutional rules for allocating power to states than I do about what citizens of those states might do with that power. Etc.

Issues like abortion and environmental laws just happen to map onto particular legal issues as an accident of history. If state-by-state legislation leads to widely legalized abortion, for example, I don't think most legal conservatives would support a Roe-like judicial decision ginning up a "right to fetal life" (which actually exists in Germany). If Congress passed environmental laws itself, instead of outsourcing it to an executive agency, I don't think most legal conservatives would be looking for ways to second-guess Congress's judgment.

You actually see this in Europe. The legal system in European countries tends to be pretty boring, because they have more social cohesion and can legislate things according to the rules, rather than hacking up the system. The equivalent of Roe, for example, doesn't exist in continental Europe. In an irony, Emmanuel Macron criticized Dobbs when it came down. But France never had anything like Roe. And after Dobbs, France passed a constitutional amendment addressing abortion, which is exactly how legal conservatives would say you should handle the issue!

He's a lawyer with a lot of professional experience. Are you a lawyer?