Was today’s ruling political?

It is the law and it is not only harsh, but it is wrong. 

The law is for the people, especially in a democracy. But this ruling was anything but a representation of the will of the people. 

Your quote is in Latin because it originated in canon law and the Church. Lest we become a religious state like Iran or the Taliban, let's keep religion out of our laws.

Very odd he ignored Loving…

Disagree in pretty much all of this.  Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them despicable.  The phraseology is unhelpful.

The problem is the same thing that it has been for decades, though.  The Supreme Court is not supposed to represent the will of the people.  The state governments are supposed to represent the will of the people.  26 of the states and the District of Columbia are true democracies.  If the majority of the people want abortion to be legal, illegal, or somewhere in between, it is fully within their power and discretion to make it so.

While I disagree with the decision, it does increase state power and return it to the people, something that I am generally for.  Having one size fits all rules is tyrannical.  If you lack the ability or the political will to make the laws work for you, you are fully within your right to travel out of state to do go to a state, where the laws better suit your desires and needs.

So I disagree with your third sentence to the extent that you are asserting that it somehow subverts the will of the people, when it specifically returns the will to the people.

Dura lex sed lex originated neither in canon law nor in the Church.  It originated in the Roman Empire, not the Church.  You translate it correctly, but you have a weird take on it.  If the law is harsh, you should work to change the law, to make it less harsh or not harsh at all.  Most of the people on here live in Oregon, so the work has already been done.

Religion and the state should be separate, I agree.  That is a revolutionary foundational principle of the United States of America, and we should work to make sure that they are separate.  We should work to avoid the fusion of politics and religion.  However, the idea that this is religious is a huge stretch.  Several religious politicians have spoken out both for and against abortion, so I disagree that religion has anything to do with the decision whatsoever.  That reeks of oversimplified bigotry.  In much the same way that we should avoid fusing politics and religion, we should also not cry wolf every time someone who is of one religion or another or areligious advances a position.  You cannot judge a religion, race, or creed on what one or even several members of that religion, race, or creed espouse.

Let's keep religion out of our laws.  Let's keep our laws out of religion.  But let's not denigrate religion, because we do not like how a Supreme Court opinion shook out.

First, Thomas said nothing about Loving v. Virginia.  The idea that he would reconsider Loving v. Virginia is nonsensical and offensive.  The rest of what you say about Thomas I will disregard, because it is a non sequitur.

When I was in law school, I had to choose a Supreme Court justice to write about in my constitutional writing class.  I chose Justice Thomas, because his decisions are very consistent and even-handed.  Scalia was harder for me to wrap my mind around.  And the others were even more difficult, because their decisions tended to be more malleable.  I did not enjoy reading his concurrence in the Dobbs case.  But it is very Thomas.  Love him or hate him, he is just about as consistent as they come.  I mean read his opinions on Establishment Clause cases.  The concurrence should not surprise anyone.  

DJT is a grifter and a crook?  Moreso than the current President?  Who has destroyed more American wealth?  Who has hamstrung more Americans from living their best lives?  Who has alienated our friends in the Middle East, while emboldening our enemies there, in Asia, and in Eastern Europe?  Who is currently setting several of those worst economic numbers since WWII?

Politicians all suck.  Every single one.  Some suck less than others.

IMO our current President is a walking, talking economic and international geopolitical disaster.

I voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020.  I thought early last year that I may have made a mistake.  But with how things have been going in the past 14+ months, I am very, very proud of voting for Trump twice.  If I had to vote today between Biden and Trump, I vote for Trump, as I always do, with some hesitation.

If my choice is between Biden (or you can pick most of the Democratic frontrunners that ran in 2020) and a grifter and a crook, I choose the grifter and crook every single time.

If you want to call Trump a grifter and a crook, I think that you have ample evidentiary support to state that, but it does not change my belief that you could probably walk 50 paces in any direction and find at least 17 different people, who would be a better President than any of the Democratic nominees in my lifetime.  And probably at least 16, who would be a better President than any of the Republican nominees not named Reagan.

Wilky - this doesn't take any legal training. He writes about reconsidering same-sex marriage but says nothing about interracial marriage. You can spin that in 5000 words if you like. You can write a bunch on how Joe Biden is a bad guy, grifter and a crook (really?). You can rationalize your vote for a white nationalist (seems easier to swallow than facist). But my 10-year-old grandniece knows why Thomas says and doesn't say what he does.

sometimes kids are better than adults at seeing people for who they are. And of course she lives with her mom.