Casey’s fortune-cookie piffle is rivaled only by its arrogance:
Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe … its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.
What would the Left would say if a peer branch of government tried that. Imagine President Trump saying, “When in the performance of my executive duties, I resolve an intensely divisive border-security issue …” Or what if the Court had flexed its muscles this way in, say, Dred Scott or Korematsu?