Keeping up on Roberts

I'm beginning to really like John Roberts, as a person and as a lawyer. I read some of his legal writing, and saw him speaking at to a small informal group in Maine about what it is like to argue before the Supreme Court, vs. arguing before a State Supreme Court. He not only knows his law, but he explains things in such a clear and well-reasoned way, that I kept thinking how easy it would be to understand his opinions. I also am attracted by his understanding of the most important point of our time about the courts, that they should not make policy for the rest of society. By leveraging its assumed role as the only and final interpreter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court seems to have accepted that it's duty is to render America scrupulously fair so that no one will feel stigmatized, or have the state intruding in their bedrooms. How it can resist the pressure to grant gays the right to marry, given the privacy right cases it has decided, without overturning them would be a feat of what lawyers call distinguishing the precedents.

It seems to me that the cases that emphasizing various provisions of the Bill of Rights without recognizing that the basic presumption is majority rule. If anyone can analyze this dilemma and propose a logical solution to it, John Roberts could, especially if he has four other justices to agree.
One thing he could do is persuade some erstwhile conservatives to come home.