The Court's Conservatives are Lying About Gay Marriage

But it's not clear which part of their story is a lie

Are Supreme Court justices high-minded philosophers who interpret the law in a neutral fashion? Or are they a bunch of dweebs in funeral ponchos who claim objectivity while shaping the law in whatever way tickles their metaphorical pickle? I’m not cynical enough to say that it’s definitely the latter, but I am cynical enough to say that it’s absolutely not the former.

The Court’s conservatives seem to want us to believe the “neutral philosophers” view. The central tenet of their judicial philosophy is that judges are too involved in lawmaking and should butt out. Chief Justice Roberts is reportedly very concerned with the court’s credibility; I wonder how he feels about the fact that public confidence in the court is at a 50 year low. That’s a stunning failure; it’s as if Roberts set himself the goal of getting six-pack abs, but ended up on My 600-lb Life getting hoisted into his bathtub with a hydraulic lift.

As much as the Court’s conservatives might want us to believe that they’re neutral arbiters, they seem to also want us to believe that they’ll make politically expedient decisions when the chips are down. This is the conclusion I’m forced to draw from their recent actions. Roberts et al. are mixing paeans to above-the-fray judicial detachment with wink-and-nod assurances that they won’t follow their judicial philosophy to its logical end point. They seem to expect us to believe that both things are true; I find it logically impossible to believe that both things are true. And that’s why I think that we need a law protecting gay marriage.

Let me explain.