[Guvante]

Why did the SC need a Goldilocks decision to overturn it? Examples from since the Constitution were invalid but examples before the Constitution were also invalid.

Ruth did not "disagree with it". She was critical of it, which is very very different.

Specifically she thought that focusing on the doctors right to decide on treatment course was a bad vector to enshrine a woman's control over her own bodily function.

Similarly she saw the rallying cry and felt that if the SC hadn't stepped in a more natural process would have resulted in a similar status over a longer time period anyway.

"If the SC hadn't done something everyone else would have" and " it didn't go far enough" are not "disagreed with".

[_2z1p]

That’s the problem, Roe was an overstepping of the Supreme Court. A law should’ve been passed instead. That is why this Supreme Court ruled the way they did. There was nothing in the Constitution or established law to support Roe.

[Guvante]

You are incorrect and the ruling doesn't support your assertion.

At minimum judiprecedent said (and the ruling explicitly said) being wrong is insufficient to overrule.

It needs to be so wrong as to be unconsolable or you need to explicitly carve out details that weren't specified before (after all Roe was already overturned)

Instead the far right justices decided that since they believed based on the evidence they provided that at the exact time the constitution was written there wasn't an established fact that abortions should be allowed.

This is a test that has never been used before this ruling. That is because the logic was developed explicitly for this ruling.

You cannot make up law and then claim your way was better.

To go on evidence shows that generally speaking the laws of the land didn't make it illegal to have an abortion as it wasn't considered that kind of thing. So opponents said "we can go back before the Constitution and see what the established precedent that they would have used would be". It pointed to legality. But that was too old for the SC.

So opponents brought up until a little before Roe it was also legal (anti abortion is not a historic thing but one that only dated back to the last century). Again however that wasn't considered pertinent because that wasn't the founding fathers perspective.

We don't even have the founding fathers perspective, they didn't discuss it to any meaningful length. We can't use evidence that before the Constitution it was considered normal. We can't use evidence that after it was considered normal.

The only evidence to discredit the SC literally deciding on its own that "it was an uncertain thing" (again no real evidence this was the real perspective, just that st least one person existed on both sides)

Due to this we overturned precedent upheld for 50 years and confirmed by a refocusing SC ruling.

That makes no sense, it doesn't rise to their own standard of mistake given in the ruling.

But none of this matters. The SC decided first: Roe is gone. Then they justified it. Thus the justification doesn't need to be good or even passable.

All to overrule a law that the majority of Republicans thought made sense and a supermajority of US thought was correct.

The SC threw away a hundred years of built up support to satisfy a super niche extremist viewpoint.

The very definition of political bullshit that the SC is supposed to avoid.