Interesting post. I am now convinced that most pro life groups are just controlled opposition. And the reason for it is to maintain that the supreme Court is something it isn't: all powerful.
By protesting the court and saying it should decide your preferred way on something, that means you're saying that the court has power to decide either way on an issue.
So Ron Paul comes along and offers for a way to fix the court and every major pro life group objects to it.
I remember reading the Constitution and studying it on my free time and was kinda confused as to how the current concept of how the court operates could be extracted from the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Constitution says very little about the Court, not even that it should have nine justices. The ability of a majority of nine undetected justices to say what the law is is an ability the court gave to itself.
I disagree with OPs understanding of Dred Scott. The Dred Scott Decision was a case of the court "saying what the law is." Implying the only way to fix it was with a constitute amendment implies it is constitutional the court acted as it did
