From Chief Justice Roberts' dissent in the recent Obergfell ruling:
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
OK, thanks.
I would say that 1, that is a dissent not a court order. And 2, “invalidate” is not necessarily saying that the entire statute is voided.
In any event, the state laws must be changed, so this argument is limited in time. This clerk’s argument is still that God forbids her to do these newly defined duties of her office.