Over the past week I’ve had an odd epiphany: I’ve realized that I feel very sorry for the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court—and Chief Justice John Roberts, in particular.

Given that the political extremes in America today are screeching loudly, this is a rough time to try to be resolutely—and sometimes incorrectly—moderate in your judicial opinions. Although a good portion of our electorate is, in fact, relatively moderate, threading the needle at this point in our nation’s history, when the courts have obligingly allowed themselves to become partisan participants through their obscurely rendered rulings, fiery dissents, and sometimes thoughtlessly delivered speeches, makes them appear hypocritical at best—and conniving at worst. Worse still, their refusal to recognize the rapid erosion of public faith in their impartiality is a worrisome sign of their startling insularity. Believing in the continued patience of fed-up Americans is only slightly better than still believing in Santa Claus

However, even-handed moderation, when it should happen to occur, is far preferable to the one-sided interference that has become so absurdly common over the past couple of decades. Having tacitly facilitated and openly encouraged so-called “judge shopping” when laws, regulations, or executive orders anger Democrats, our federal courts have transformed themselves into political actors intervening on demand instead of an impartial and restrained judicial branch ruling on matters of law only when it is necessary or required. It has become almost farcical how quickly so many “emergency orders” by one compliant judge or another put a stop to governmental actions whose biggest problems are that they offend the tender sensibilities those who worry about criminals, scammers, liars, and the mentally-unwell being given a hard time instead of being granted undying legal protection and unending taxpayer money.

In light of the problems that arise when those who are not citizens decide to cross our borders without permission, overstay their visas, or simply book a flight so that their babies can enjoy instant American  citizenship, this past week’s ruling on the Constitutionality of so-called birthright citizenship speaks to a Supreme Court terrified of the consequences of a common sense application of the Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Every American who did not learn how to twist logic into a pretzel in a law school understands the dire implications of granting automatic American citizenship to the offspring of non-citizens who are also often lawbreakers, but this did not stop a majority of the Justices from saddling us with a nonsensical and dangerous interpretation of the Constitution for another 50 years or so. Many will not like the severe restrictions on all immigration and travel by pregnant woman that will likely result from this ruling—and scream that our updated policies are bigoted—but the Supreme Court is wholly to blame for whatever Draconian steps will follow hard on the heels of their firm commitment to pettifogging obfuscation and mendacity.

Although judicial cowardice is an disaster for America and Americans, the timidity of the enrobed and unelected is understandable. Having been trained to respect precedents—even if they are fashionable instead of sensible—and worried about Democrat threats to pack the Supreme Court with partisan hacks if they can elect enough Socialists to drive that legislation forward, the Justices are well aware of just how vulnerable they are.

Stuck with the plain fact that the Constitution does not specify just how many seats there are on the Supreme Court and well understanding (in an age when mob violence and assassination attempts have become shockingly celebrated on social media) that a black robe is not innately bulletproof, it is little surprise that their default mode is to tread carefully—particularly when correcting past errors could anger so many. Anyone who does not presume that Justices read public opinion polls is naive, and, given the overwhelmingly Liberal bent of the Washington, D.C. metro area, none of the Justices really want to deal with their newly unfriendly neighbors tossing garbage over their fences during the night or harassing their children and spouses at school or work.

Holding your finger resolutely to the wind might not be particularly honorable, but it has been a well-worn survival tactic in all branches of government forever. Heroic and principled stands are always risky, and most climb to the heights of power in our nation’s Capitol by standing aside when a hard decision needs to be made. The only reason that the Supreme Court mustered up the will to agree that States can prohibit men and boys from participating in girls’ and women’s sports (and creepily undressing in their locker rooms) is that they could readily read the overwhelmingly unfavorable optics on this particular issue. Even Democrats don’t want their 13 year-old daughters traumatized by having to see a middle school sort-of-a-girl’s penis during a volleyball tournament, so the outcry over this ruling can be expected to die down rather quickly.

Having already dealt with one public and extraordinarily divisive beat-down when they overturned Roe v. Wade four years ago, it is unlikely we will see much beyond bland incrementalism from the Roberts court for the foreseeable future. Maybe this is a good idea. Although football games filled with punts are boring to watch, perhaps a dull stretch of narrowly-written decisions is just what our troubled nation needs at this time. Even John Roberts himself, during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing, famously—and disingenuously— asserted that his job as a Supreme Court Justice would be to “call balls and strikes” in a limited role.

A period of time during which the Supreme Court (and Federal Courts in general) strive to avoid judicial activism in favor of a restraint that allows legislators to reassert their roles as our nation’s lawmakers could help to cool the emotions that now swirl around our nation’s courts and allow the time for a welcome—and overdue—rebalancing of the powers accorded to our three co-equal branches of government. It is worth a try.