His siding with the majority in the Voting Rights Act case is impossible to reconcile with his dissent in the decision striking down DOMA, with its sermon about the court's role.  All of which brings to mind a post from a decade ago, when the blog was young and fresh and only slightly read.  That hypothesis, amusing as it is, is no doubt too simple, but such manifest inconsistency in the space of a couple of days cries out for some kind of explanation.