Just because, say, Thomas and RBG disagree doesn't actually/necessarily mean one of them is "wrong." They often (really by definition or design) decide cases for which an objectively true or correct answer doesn't exist, or for which an answer depends on how they interpret intentionally vague words or terms in the statute or the Constitution. Yeah, you have a right to "keep and bear arms" but what is an 'arm'? SAM, RPG, fully auto rifle? And at all times, anywhere, without restrictions? If not, then what restrictions are reasonable? Etc.....
So in those cases which include most of the hot button issues, they're politicians in black robes, and politicians have different ideologies and will come to different answers on questions that ultimately revolve around their preferences instead of black and white law. So we'll always worry about which party makes appointments, because to "get it right" means 'you agree with the decision' not that it's objectively correct. You've already demonstrated that much. Your version of 'rights' is what you say they are, not how the courts with actual experts in Constitutional law presiding have for decades delineated them.
You and Cp keep saying there are no positive rights but that's not true (e.g. if you're poor you have a right to taxpayer funded counsel). And the states and the feds can (there is no question about this) regulate commerce, including prohibiting discrimination in certain circumstances.
