How about their previous ruling that law schools can use a quota system to insure diversity in applicants? This is actually against the Constitution which guarantees we're all treated equally no matter what race, creed, religion or color, yet the Supreme Court upheld quotas.
Yeah, and where were those activist judges when, for 100+ years, we had slaves, counted as 3/5ths of a person. And, even if they escaped slavery (by running away), they had to go back, if caught (ala Dred Scott).
And where were they when we sent American Citizens to Concentration Camps during WWII, causing them to lose their property, simply because they were of Japanese dissent. (The Supremes allowed that, too -- even though those folks were clearly not treated equally because of their race and creed...)
Oh, I see... they were just supporting time-honored precedent and supporting and protecting the Constitution.
Slavery was bad, but the treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII remains one of the low points our history -- with little real justification. (History created and sustained slavery far too long, but racism seems to be the only excuse for the Concentration Camps.)
With the cases in question, I suggest you read the court opinions -- available on line -- rather than the pre-digested pablum available to us on the news. If you do, you'll see that there was a lot of underlying law and history taken into consideration. While you may not agree with the decision, it was not not entirely an irrational decision -- and it didn't jump, fully formed, into existence as the decision was written.
I just finished reading the Scalia dissent in the McCreary County case. He's pretty brutal in his condemnation of the majority opinion, and personally attacks Justice Steven's opinion. In doing, so, however, he offers little real LEGAL justification for his viewpoint. Scalia just attacks a viewpoint he disagrees with and offers up warm and fuzzy points that seem to have even less basis in law and precedent than the majority opionion of the court.
Now its on to the Orden v. Perry decision..