There are some partisan hacks on the bench and the institution’s legitimacy is in pretty bad shape.
But in this case they got an issue that didn’t have as much partisan alignment so maybe they did some good work.
(The other source, to my eyes, of questions of legitimacy is that the appointment of three judges in a narrow amount of time under one party's dominance of Congress and the Presidency has fundamentally shifted the "flavor" of the way the Court interprets law. Rather than bringing their legitimacy into question, that's rather the point of the process by which the US appoints Justices and the length of their term; the Court's "personality" is stable over long stretches of time, but it can shift and it does go through eras. People complaining about the new era don't seem to realize that for many Americans, the previous era was strange times that called to question in their minds the legitimacy of the Court).
Ask good lawyers about their thoughts on SCOTUS Justices, it's not always peachy.
Honestly though, for as much flak as this current court gets, there is at least a certain consistency where they at least mostly stick to arguments about the letter of the law. In previous courts you would see some truly wild written arguments about how, like, a specific word in the Commerce Clause or whatever could mean whatever you wanted it to.
Not so true of this incarnation of SCOTUS. It's amazing when they dont delay or rule (by majority) via ridiculous interpretation.
As detestable as I find the outcome, Roe v. Wade built a right to privacy out of whole cloth where none existed before, and whether that was good law has been hotly debated ever since it was decided (https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ref...). It's within the purview of SCOTUS to go "This was bad lawcraft done by our predecessors, and we reverse it based on this reasoning..."
We can disagree with their reasoning, but my main point is you rarely see a ruling from SCOTUS that is nakedly "Because I said so," even though that's de facto the power they have. The initial Roe decision was shaky. "That was a shaky decision, so we have reversed it" was at most equally shaky. It's hard to argue that one is well-reasoned and the other not (though I think there's room to disagree on what facts the two Courts considered).
Oral arguments are the lawyers making arguments. The justices ask questions and collect answers. Their proofs are in their opinions.
Your post would be fine without that first bit.
See Pierson v. Ray (1967)
I haven't responded that way in the past but was responded to that way a couple of days ago and guess it took hold. I can see why you have to clamp down on it, it easily spreads.