This may not really apply to the current discussion but your statements about precedent and norms caught my attention.
Relying on SCOTUS precedent and historical norms, as has been seen the last several years, is a weak and ambiguous way to govern. The only way something should be expected to be legislated long-term is to write a law explicitly addressing the issue.
Abortion: It was supported by Roe v. Wade. Well SCOTUS revisited the ruling and look what happened. If the political left wanted abortion to be solidly legal, it should have been codified into law.
The penalty for not having insurance under the Affordable Care Act was judged to be a "tax" and legal. If the political right wanted it struck down, then write clear and precise legislation to do so. (I don't know if this requirement is still around, I'm using what I remember as an example).
I'm not saying court rulings are useless; they are very useful in seeing how the courts will interpret a law. If the legislators find that the courts rule that a law says "x" when it's intended to say "y," then rewrite the law so it clearly says "y."