Yes, it is acting as the legislative branch rather than as the judicial branch. And I wish it were not so. But I also wish our legislative branch would do its job and seek consensus and pass laws.
Ginsburg at her confirmation - "The seven to two judgment in Roe v. Wade declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court’s splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy."
Of all her rulings, but she was undoubtedly knowledgeable of her craft. And I am in agreement with you again...finding a consensus between both sides gets us to a point where both sides can live with the solution. At my last job, one of the biggest lessons that I had to learn was "Don't let perfect get in the way of better."
~Jeordam
Saving the Princess, Humanity, or the World-Entire since 1985