I wouldn't call the Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas axis of the Supreme Court "mean," although that's a fair description of the result when they apply their theories to the Constitution. The term I'd probably use is "academic."

I know, that word usually is reserved for pointy-head liberal intellectuals, but it's really an apt description of how those four seem to approach the law. They're very theoretical, disinclined to pay attention to how things work in the real world and essentially uninterested in the bad consequences of their decisions so long as those decisions are, in their minds, correct.

Consider the wage discrimination case - they don't buy the idea of ongoing discrimination because there is an act they can point to as "the" discrimination - or the filing deadline case - it's right there in the statute and it's unfortunate that you believed the judge instead of checking it out yourself - or the two speech cases, where hypothetical interpretations of what the speakers were intending were given primacy over what was really going on. (I mean, really, did anyone think that "Bong hits 4 Jesus" actually advocated drug use? Of course not, because it was just a stupid prank.) In all of these decisions, you get a sense that the Court was looking for a plausible, theoretical basis for its conclusions, and was satisfied to get there. That's very much an academic kind of exercise.

Given their theoretical bent, it might not be a coincidence that each of the Four Horsemen (pick your allusion here) did no time as a trial court judge, with each having started his judicial career on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Trial courts aren't academic; they're very practical. They deal with the daily grind of cases you can't ignore, with witnesses, with facts and with the actual consequences of your actions. Considering that Sandra Day O'Connor was a trial judge (and a legislator, another job that reminds you about the real world), perhaps the difference in point of view is not surprising.

In this light, what the Court probably needs is a bit more realism. Realism would say that, while you can't necessarily get away with missing a deadline based on a lawyer's mistake, or a mistake by a court clerk, it's not your fault when the judge tells you the wrong date; and that your rights are violated every time you're paid less based on your gender. Realism would say these things because it recognizes how the world actually works, and if I were vetting Supreme Cout Justices, that's what I'd insist on in the next few nominees.