> 1. The judiciary exists to protect the rights of the people protected by the constitution, even when there may not be broad public support for those rights, even when those rights are unpopular. That's what happened with Brown v. BoE

That's correct, but I think the legal argument from Equal Protection Clause in Brown v. Board of Education is rather straightforward, compared to "emanations of penumbras" that form the constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade. As much as I support right to contraceptives, and right to abortion, I believe that the Supreme Court arguments for constitutional basis of these are, to put it bluntly, full of shit.

> 2. 61% of Americans think that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That is, 39% think it should be illegal. To compare, 49% think that burning the American Flag should be illegal, which the court has had no problem defending, and no one seems to consider was wrong for the court to decide.

That's a very good point. I think if you ask American public whether they support constitutional right to free speech, overwhelming majority will be for it. I think the contradiction stems from the fact that their moral responses are rather automatic, and not based on careful moral reasoning. When you actually connect flag burning to free speech in their minds, I suspect that the support for making flag burning a crime will fall. I think it's much easier to make such connection than to argue that such right stems from the right to privacy, which in turn stems from the right to due process.

I don't like the methods, even if the outcome is to my liking. The same motivated arguments could be used to argue anything the judges want, and one day the judges will decide something I do not like using the same motivated arguments. For example, it was ruled that right to privacy prevents banning contraceptive drugs. However, recreational psychoactive drugs are banned just fine, and there are hardly any voices arguing unconstitutionality of the practice. Why is it? Clearly, the answer cannot be based on the differences enumerated in the text of clause in the constitution defining right to privacy, because there simply is no such text: it's all emanated penumbras. I think the answer is rather very simple: the judges preferred one outcome in contraceptive case, and opposite outcome in the other case. This ain't so bad, but if we just decide cases based on the outcome judges want, why we even have the law and the constitution in the first place? What's the point?

The real reason for concern of liberal Americans with respect to Roe v. Wade, and in general with respect to Trump appointments of judges to the Supreme Court, is that it is tacitly recognized that the US Constitution is dead, is just words on the old parchment, and it's the judges personal opinion that's the actual defining law of the country. This arrangement worked just fine for as long as the Supreme Court made decisions to the liking of liberal Americans, but as that era is coming to the end, they see that there's nothing to protect them anymore now that the Constitution has been killed.

> Huh? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler)

Oh, I'm sorry, I incorrectly assumed that Canada's abortion laws are similar to those in the rest of the western world, however they seem to be sitting in rather exceptional bucket alongside US.