Agreed, Kevin. I would just add that, while it is true that no right is “absolute,” our presumption should be that the rights that were explicitly written down in the Bill of Rights will come pretty close. As you note, when Joe Biden says “this right isn’t absolute,” he really means “therefore, I can limit it in any way I want.” But this is an inversion of how we should reflexively see it. “Not absolute” should not mean “not actually a right”; it should mean “a right that can only be abridged at the bleeding edge.”
There is a reason that the language in the Bill of Rights is as harsh as it is: “shall make no law”; “shall not be infringed”; “No Soldier shall”; “shall not be violated”; “no Warrants shall issue”; “No person shall be held to answer”; “shall enjoy the right”; “shall be preserved”; “shall not be required,” etc. These are not the words of people who wanted to ensure just a little bit of legal protection; they’re the words of people who were playing for keeps.