This is why I consider places like Politifact/Factcheck useful. I don't always agree with their assessment, but they detail their reasoning and are generally fair. I can follow the logic, figure out where we diverge, and form my own opinion.

It's the same with SCOTUS rulings. They give a detailed account of their reasoning. Even conservative justices who I think routinely use backwards reasoning to make idiotic decisions at least tend to follow a logic absent in rulings from their conservative peers in lower courts (who tend more toward non-reasoning like "gay is bad" and "why do you hate capitalism").

I can at least follow a bizarre logic and understand how they came to the decision because there is a logic, even if the logic comes from a mindset that conflicts with my own.