Yep.
And if you can’t say anything good, spend your efforts winning elections and packing that court with right-thinking justices.
They did not approve gay marriage, just refused to deal with the issue. Every justice counts, and we need a Senate firewall to keep more Ginsbergs off the bench.
Sort of like when your kids are out doing burglaries and beatings, and otherwise acting up, and you, the parent know the kids are behaving badly. Refusing to deal with them is not the same as approving.
I'm reminded of the maxim, "silence is approval." Granted, it is not literally true.
Iirc it takes four Justices to agree for the Court to hear a case. I’m guessing Alito, Scalia and Thomas wanted to hear the case, Kennedy (who we know is pro gay marriage) and Roberts (who we assumed is) voted with the Libs to keep it off the docket.
I’m glad you brought up Ginsburg as your example. I see her hand at work here. While she’s a pro abortion extremist, she’s actually anti Roe v Wade. In her belief the Court should have left abortion alone, letting the states and lower courts hash it out for several more years until there was societal critical mass on the issue and the Court could have ruled in a less divisive environment.
That seems to be the strategy here. Yes, the Court will eventually hear a case and will eventually rule on it (in favor of it). But only once such a ruling will be seen as an afterthought (by most Americans anyways) on what is a well-established “right” and practice.
How you gonna get a firewall when the only choice is between the Democrat Party and its wholly owned subsidiary the Gope? There is no Resurrection for the Republic. It has passed.