For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [contraception], Lawrence [sodomy], and Obergefell [same sex marriage]. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents.
Wonder why Clarence left out the Loving v. Virginia case, which allowed mixed race marriages? They're not mentioned in the constitution, are they? Sounds like the Justices like to pick and choose when it is politically convenient for them. What a surprise.