This editorial opinion tells you everything you need to know about The New York Times. The Times doesn’t want the Supreme Court to enforce the values that are written into the Constitution or statutes; it wants the Court to enforce progressive values. In other words, the Times wants the Court to accomplish certain goals, even if they’re not in accordance with law. This is result-oriented jurisprudence, which is to say, not jurisprudence at all. If the people of this country want to amend the Constitution to achieve progressive ends, they’re free to do so. The Constitution has been amended before and it can be amended again. If Congress believes that its statutes have been misconstrued by the Court, it can amend them to make its intentions clear. The Court’s job is to interpret and apply the law, not make it.

Addendum: I detect the following reasoning in the editorial opinion:

1. Many of the cases this term worked to the advantage of the privileged.

Therefore,

2. The Court’s aim was to advantage the privileged.

This is fallacious reasoning. Alas, it is all too common among progressives. They infer motivation from outcome. If a certain policy works to the advantage of whites, for example, it can only be because those who implemented the policy are racists. If women, as a class, earn 75% of what men earn, it can only be because of sexism in the workplace. If a series of Supreme Court rulings benefit the wealthy, it can only be because the Court sought to produce that result.