Let me get this straight. The editorial board of the New York Times is troubled by the fact that the Supreme Court is revising its own exclusionary rule, which is only decades old, but not the least bit troubled by the fact that unelected judges are changing the definition of "marriage," which is as old as time immemorial. The board is solidly in favor of precedent when it comes to things it likes, but wholeheartedly against it when it comes to things it dislikes. In other words, the board doesn't give a damn about precedent. It is simply a tool to be used when it promises to do the job at hand.
Addendum: I laughed when I read the description of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting opinion as "thoughtful." The implication is that the opinions of those in the majority are thoughtless. But why? Merely because the editorial board doesn't like the conclusion? What we have here, really, is vanity. The board members think they are thoughtful. Since Justice Ginsburg agreed with them in this case, why, her opinion is thoughtful, too! What the board doesn't appear to grasp is that both sides of a dispute can be thoughtful, even reasonable. But that would concede too much to Chief Justice John Roberts, who must be vilified. How did we get to this place, people? How did it become acceptable, even fashionable, to abuse Supreme Court justices? I expect that from thugs such as Brian Leiter, who has called Chief Justice Roberts "depraved and repellent," and who has described Justice Clarence Thomas as a "lunatic"; but Leiter is a marginal figure in the legal academy (not to mention an incompetent philosopher). I expect more from the editorial board of what used to be a great newspaper.
