Ok? Absolutely not. A technical loophole that could be used to justify such rulings if the court felt like going that direction? Most definitely.
Whether it's actually acceptable or not is irrelevant, it's about closing a constitutional loophole. Unfortunately in the current political climate that would be impossible and as a result you will continue to see the US slide backwards into authoritarianism.
Just wait until a republican controlled Congress attempts to pass a national ban on abortion, something this ruling explicitly opens the door to.
I'm not convinced that unenumerated' rights are 'loopholes'.
A constitution, any constitution is meant as a set of very high level principles by which a nation/institution is governed.
They/It are never meant to be prescriptive documents listing each and every right or freedom, any more than they micromanage the affairs of state.
A high level principle is equality before and under the law.
But that can mean a host of different things, for men and women (or minorities for that matter).......the constitution says nothing about equal pay for work of equal value. Yet, that can be reasonably inferred as being implicit.
That simple statement doesn't define the limits of equality by age (we don't let toddlers vote or drive).........clearly there remains an element open to legislative discretion, with judicial oversight.
Must the constitution spell out the driving age, the age of consent, the age at which one may purchase alcohol?. It turns out its easier and arguably better to leave the legislative details to governments of the day; and if someone feels aggrieved by what the legislature has put in place, let the Court audit it against the
principles enshrined in the constitution.
A constitution that micro manages is its own type of problem. It has its appeal (removes some ambiguity/judicial discretion); but it also makes it hard to adapt to changing times and circumstances.
Also, a prescriptive, expansive constitution as you might envision it could easily run into the thousands of pages.
Provided that one's highest Court is held in high esteem by the broader public, affording deference to such a court in interpretation of the constitution's principles is arguably both wise and infinitely practical.
It also allows a Court to revisit previous decisions when society has evolved/changed, as our court did with MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) .
Clearly there is a problem in the U.S. case in that the Court is not held in high esteem in general; neither by the political right, nor the left; its credibility has been teetering for years with highly questionable decisions that have
very clearly been on partisan/ideological lines.
The Court in the U.S., in recent years has also been entirely tone-deaf on where the public sentiment lay.
Our Supreme Court has been very much willing to lead public opinion, but has also been mindful of it.
I do get that that could change; that one has to be careful in appointing judges, that one has to have sound principles surrounding courts in general; and that politicians and the media need to be careful not to bash institutions
and their credibility simply because they disagree with one ruling or decision or law.
But I don't think you avoid peril simply by codifying everything.