Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying throw caution to the wind, but ludditism also isn't the answer.

As it should be, "I told you so" all day long.

I support first trimester abortions. Now go pass those laws in the states via the legislative process where it belongs.

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.

"The largely limitless reach of the dissenters’ standard is illustrated by the way they apply it here. First, if the “long sweep of history” imposes any restraint on the recognition of unenumerated rights, then Roe was surely wrong, since abortion was never allowed (except to save the life of the mother) in a majority of States for over 100 years before that decision was handed down. Second, it is impossible to defend Roe based on prior precedent because all of the precedents Roe cited, including Griswold and Eisenstadt, were critically different for a reason that we have explained: None of those cases involved the destruction of what Roe called “potential life.”"

"Most of the federal government’s authority over the economy derived from a clause in the Constitution empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but the court construed the clause so narrowly that in another case that next spring, it ruled that not even so vast an industry as coal mining fell within the commerce power."

The "regulation of interstate commerce" now is a joke of a catchall which basically is modernly interpreted as "government can damn do what it pleases in every avenue of our lives" from its original interpretation which was "you can make sure horses can get from point A to point B".