The article demonstrates an unfortunately narrow view of supreme court cases - seeing them as something that should constantly side on a certain moral answer to

The article demonstrates an unfortunately narrow view of supreme court cases - seeing them as something that should constantly side on a certain moral answer to the object-level question (a specific case), rather than something that upholds important (or at the very least, consistent) terminal values on the meta-level. Similar to how some people decide to side against freedom of speech when it starts to benefit their opponent more than it helps them, even though a matter like that should be decided on a higher principle than "someone says things I wish they wouldn't be allowed to say". As far as this article goes I'm not sure I buy some of what the author is saying, partly due to the language they use, but also due to a lack of evidence and sufficient information in some areas. We'll have to wait and see.