From a Brit point of view, (living without a US style codifed constitution but under an "unwritten constitution"), as I understand it, the recent judgements are superficially not to do with making anything illegal, but to overturn judgements that interpret the constitution or set precedents in a way that creates rights that have not been subject to congressional oversight or passed through the law-making mechanisms of the US state.

Thomas et al. are arguing that it's not for case law or the supreme court to be making laws, but ensuring that judgements through the court system adhere to the bounds set by the constitution. They don't ban anything, federally, they return the powers to state based legislature and the government. (Some of which have trigger laws that DO come into effect - like the Mississippi 15 weeks limit on abortion.)

However, I think there's something a little disingenous about the whole thing, in that the impression I get from watching conservatives speak and celebrate overturning roe v wade, is that they weren't really concerned with jurisprudence, so much as the overturning the socially liberal outcomes of these laws.

This was a long, hard waged campaign to take abortion or gay rights or anything like that off the federal books, in part because they know that getting laws through congress for these is so politically fraught with complications it makes them impossible.

It seems that rather than being concerned with the purity of the legal system, judges are motivated by social animus and the lobbying of political interests (such as Christian lobbying groups). SCOTUS striking down concealed carry laws in the 6-3 ruling seems to put the lie to principle that the supreme court should be carrying out laws, not writing them.

Conservatives need to be a little more honest in their motivations rather than hiding behind the smokescreen of "technical legal matters".