Judge Karnow’s opinion piece is long on words but short on legal reasoning

Either the Supreme Court is legitimate or it isn't. That legitimacy shouldn't exist or vanish based on whether the Court can correctly "predict the future" (whatever that means) in rendering what Judge Karnow deems an "epochal" decision (whatever that means). Epochal Decisions, Curtis E.A. Karnow, Daily Journal, Oct. 13. He is essentially saying that the Court only retains legitimacy if it renders opinions consistent with the national mood, not based on its Constitutional analysis.

He is also off the mark in arguing that the Dobbs decision marked the first time there has been a restriction of a "federal Constitutional right." In a broad sense, every Supreme Court decision expanding a federal Constitutional right is a corresponding restriction of another right by the losing party (e.g., the ending of the Separate But Equal doctrine in Brown would be argued by segregationists as an infringement of States' rights under the Constitution), but more specifically, the federal right to an abortion doesn't exist in the Constitution but was created by the Supreme Court in Roe, just like the right to be free from capital punishment through the 8th Amendment was created by the Court in 1972. In both instances a right was created by the Court which was later taken away by a later Court. Unless expressly stated in the Constitution, ALL rights are subject to re-interpretation by later Courts.

I would have preferred an opinion piece by a sitting judge to be more well reasoned. This was nothing more than a dressed-up piece sending the dark message that unless the Court renders decisions that are politically popular it loses - and does not deserve - legitimacy.