A similar mistake I see people make is hearing the headline, "SCOTUS sides with party A over party B", and conclude the Court generally supports and agrees with

A similar mistake I see people make is hearing the headline, "SCOTUS sides with party A over party B", and conclude the Court generally supports and agrees with what A did and maybe even believes A acted morally rightly. That's not SCOTUS's job and that's not what they do (usually). It doesn't carry the voice of the people and has no mandate to do what the people want. Its job is to decide whether our system of laws as constructed by Congress (which is the voice of the people) and as bounded by the Constitution ultimately allows A or B to prevail. In no way should a ruling in favor of A be construed as an endorsement of A's action. See Antonin Scalia's strongly worded thoughts about the Texas v Johnson flag-burning case, in which he voted contrary to his personal convictions about the morality of Johnson's actions. Because, ultimately, he knew his vote was not a moral judgment but a legal one.