1/ Perhaps the idea of law and the ideal of the rule of law are illusory. Perhaps there is only politics and power. Perhaps the "legal realists" and "critical legal studies" scholars were right: legal norms are inherently indeterminate and can't actually guide judicial reasoning.

2/ Perhaps judicial decisions will inevitably and unavoidably reflect the decision-maker's ideological, political, moral, etc. commitments. These points are all debatable. What I think is now beyond debate is that in case after case the Supreme Court is not being guided by law.

3/ Perhaps it is because the justices can't be--law is an illusion. Or it may be, as I believe it is, that many justices simply refuse to be guided by law. They could be, but they choose not to be. They choose instead to exercise power lawlessly to advance their political goals.

4/ Of course, they must pretend otherwise. That's simply because their legitimacy--particularly in a democratic republic--depends on the public's faith in the idea of law and the ideal of the rule of law and its belief that judges can generally be counted on to be guided by law.