The SCOTUS is a political battleground where Federal laws can be passed as jurisprudence on the interpretation of the US Constitution, circumventing the legislative process.

Instead of laws on reproductive rights, you had a ruling even detailing the time frames in which abortion was legal.

Instead of legalizing gay marriage, you have a ruling on the federal recognition of licenses issued in individual states.

Instead of a law on lobbying, you have a ruling saying that monetary contributions to campaigns are the free speech of lobbying groups.

Instead of an organic law on weapons permits, you have a ruling saying what kinds of firearm regulations states can pass.

But people can't say this politicization of the SCOTUS is new; back when the hot topic were worker rights, in the early XX century, those were the battles being fought there, to skip Congressional debates:

https://reason.com/2021/12/02/the-laissez-faire-origins-of-t...

great answer thanks

The Supreme Court does not create laws. Congress does. The Supreme Court interprets those laws, making sure they do not violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is like a compiler simply running the instructions it's been told. It doesn't have any input over what's written.

Historically, people have used the Supreme Court to create laws, circumventing the voting process and giving 9 people oligarch-like power. This is not ideal.

There's also the general expectation the Supreme Court should do what's "right" which again, isn't a relevant metric for judging whether something is constitutional. The Supreme Court at its best is an amoral, apolitical institution.

Not the OP, but many folks treat the SCOTUS as divided into the red and blue teams, and that they have to vote like whatever party would, vs an independent check on the other two branches of gov't.