I've never understood this position from him. I'll admit that I've never read anything he's written about it so I'm probably speaking out of turn, and that ther

I've never understood this position from him. I'll admit that I've never read anything he's written about it so I'm probably speaking out of turn, and that there is a surprising death to this view that I'm not seeing because I haven't seriously looked into it, at least not from his perspective. That said, I'm not sure where someone could come to the conclusion that the court should remain neutral when courts, especially the Supreme Court, mark the point where a dispute is resolved not in terms of how to follow the existing law, but why the existing law is the way it is, and whether it should be patchedto reflect a new understanding of why our values are what they are. The "correct" place to do this is of course in the legislature, but it moves on a comparatively glacial time frame and in some cases can never come to a clear actionable position on issues in a timely manner, while harms are actively taking place without remedy. The neutral stance is implicitly conservative, disregarding changes in our understanding of why we value what we value, and instead focusing on mechanical details of how to paper over ever widening disparities, constantly pointing at the legislature to sort them out. If the court had the power to force legislature to come to a decision one way or the l other it would be different I suppose, but this would of course put the Court under the legislature, defeating the purpose of separated powers. I acknowledge that the issue is quite complex. still from the outside, to put it bluntly, his stance looks like a rationalization to shirk an essential responsibility he has been uniquely entrusted with.