Maybe it sounds like I'm impugning the motive of the writer, but how else can you explain an article that says this:
The irony is that the Court's ideology is playing a dwindling role in the lives of Americans. The familiar hot-button controversies--abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, police powers and so on--have been around so long, sifted and resifted so many times, that they now arrive at the court in highly specific cases affecting few, if any, real people. And it's not clear that Roberts wants to alter that trend.
Yeah, except that the death penalty has now been halted by the court not once but twice in the last 3 weeks. And one of the liberal Supremes, John Paul Stevens, was appointed practically during Reconstruction. And the GOP frontrunner for president is screaming from the rooftops that he'll put more Scalias on the bench, and everyone who's not a complete f**king fool (or a writer for Time Magazine, apparently) knows that one more Scalia = the overturning of Roe v. Wade.