Ruth Bader Ginsberg. An educated person who has written their own job description.

Quote 1
"The court does not make laws, and it's not in the vanguard of social change, but what it can do and can do effectively is to move along a social change that is already under way in the larger society."

So the court can't make laws, but if a disputed law comes to the court and it is in line with the social views of a majority they can help it along?  The courts job is to uphold the constitution which is designed to be a check on the power of the majority.  The job of the court is then the exact opposite; to make sure that social change under way in the larger society does not infringe on the rights of the minority.

Quote 2
"Contraceptive protection is something that every woman must have access to, to control their own destiny.  I certainly respect the belief of the hobby lobby owners, on the other hand they have no constitutional right to foist that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women who work for them who don't share that belief."

Let's take that last sentence and do a word replace.  Swap 'hobby lobby owners' with 'hundreds and hundreds of women' and you get "I certainly respect the beliefs of women, on the other hand they have no constitutional right to foist that belief on the hobby lobby owners who don't share that belief."  So the argument works both ways, she is just picking the permutation that she likes.

Quote 3
"My hobby lobby dissent didn't turn on the difference between a corporation and a sole proprietorship, my point was that no employer, no matter what the business may be, should be able to transfer that religious belief on to people who don't share that belief....One has freedom to move ones arm until it hits the other fellows nose.  Same way with speech same with religion, you can exercise your right freely until it affects other people who share their views."

What a great opportunity to point to a part of the constitution to explain the basis of your dissent....but no, she admits her dissent turned on who she decided was the 'arm' and who she decided was the 'nose'.  If you think about that example though, you could easily just say that the nose should move out of the way.  However, in our system, the nose, remaining stationary is not obligated to avoid the arm which is taking the action.  The action in question here is clear, it is demanding payment for contraception.  Whoever demands payment is then taking that action.  So clearly the women are the ones taking the action, they are the arm, and they are free to demand payment for contraception until it hits someone's nose, that is, anyone who does not want to pay for contraception.  The nose could move, and give up ownership of it's company, but it surely isn't required to.  Now if you change the action to 'refusing to pay for contraception' foregoing that the action itself is a lack of doing something, then hobby lobby becomes the arm, and for the nose (women) to avoid the arm, they would have to pay for it themselves (slowly becoming an old fashioned concept), or find someone more agreeable to pay for it.  Surely less burdensome then giving up ownership of their company.

Justice Breyer in FEC v McCutcheon

"If the average person thinks that what he says exercising his 1st amendment rights, just can't have an impact through public opinion upon his elected representative, he says 'what is the point of the first amendment?'" -Stephen Breyer

Are we really going to abridge one persons 1st amendment rights so another person can feel that the first amendment has a point?  The point of the 1st amendment is Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.  The only way someone can feel the 1st amendment has no point is if the congress ignores it.