Listen, I haven’t read all those same-sex-marriage Court opinions. I can notice that nothing fancy or unexpected happened. Roberts didn’t do some statesmanlike switch to put the change on a sounder or more limited constitutional footing. The justices who make up the majority all deferred to the signature relational reasoning of Justice Kennedy, to which at least Justice Ginsburg — not to mention many or most libertarians — doesn’t really agree. Each member of dissenting four is angry (and thoughtful) enough to want to have his own say. A completely nonpartisan observation is that this is easily the most transformative thing the Court has done by a 5–4 vote. That doesn’t mean there’s any significant chance that the next presidential election will be fought over getting the decision reversed.

I know I ticked off many of our readers — beginning with Carl — by my quirkily judgmental observations of activism. Almost everyone would say that activism defined as overturning existing law would have been or is just the right thing to do under the Constitution yesterday or today — and some libertarian theorists would say yesterday and today. No justice, we have to note (contrary to libertarian hopes about Kennedy), would say yesterday and today.

But from one view: The consistent anti-activist is the guy who sides with settled law in both cases. That’s Roberts. And only Roberts. I’m not saying he was right in both cases. I’m making an analytic point to stimulate your critical thinking.