It's an interesting sub-case of Dunning-Kruger that people with consciences and integrity try to shame people like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito about hypocr

It's an interesting sub-case of Dunning-Kruger that people with consciences and integrity try to shame people like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito about hypocrisy. They project onto them attributes they do not care about; their logic is that Loving impacts Thomas and Griswold, Olbergefell, and Lawrence do not. They dislike gay people and feminists, and things that hurt them are good. Things that hurt them are bad. Just look at the stunning hypocrisy on Bruen. It says in plain English: "well regulated militia", and they can't infer a right to regulate firearms by states there... but they can't find a right for a basic medical procedure in the Due Process Clause. I'm not being uncharitable, just read the majority decision. They can't hide behind inconsequential dissents now, their shitty jurisprudence is front and center. They can't argue on merits, so they appeal to a prior history that never existed. It is an embarrassing episode for those of us that follow Supreme Court decisions, and it's a tragic episode for those whose human rights they are taking away (and their loved ones).