Without bothering to mention that the allegation against Planned Parenthood has been thoroughly debunked, Justice Thomas went on: “Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty. If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”

Quoting Number 78 of the Federalist Papers, Justice Thomas lectured his colleagues: “The Framers gave us lifetime tenure to promote ‘that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance’ of the courts’ role as ‘bulwarks of a limited Constitution,’ unaffected by fleeting ‘mischiefs.’ We are not ‘to consult popularity,’ but instead to rely on ‘nothing but the Constitution and the laws.’”

In other words, we have three conservative justices calling out two other conservative justices as wimps at best, unprincipled strivers for public approval at worst. And this may be just the tip of the iceberg. Now in recess until the second week in January, the court has issued only two opinions in argued cases since the current term began on Oct. 1, a slow start that makes it much too early to take the court’s temperature. But it’s notable that a similar split emerged last month in response to the Trump administration’s effort to enlist the court in stopping a trial on the legality of the disputed decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Only three justices voted to grant the administration’s request: Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

Where were the chief justice and Justice Kavanaugh then? The answer is unknowable from the outside, but the question is crucial. Has it occurred to the Thomas three that something more significant may be at stake than dragging the court into ideological battle? Something like the court’s own short-term welfare and long-term legitimacy?

We know Chief Justice Roberts is concerned about public perception of the Supreme Court, and of all federal courts, as tools of political partisanship. That concern, which he has expressed repeatedly, finally led him to push back last month against President Trump’s latest attack on federal judges. We also know that despite his usually genial demeanor, the chief justice is an isolated figure, scorned on the right as a traitor for having saved the Affordable Care Act and mistrusted on the left for having eviscerated the Voting Rights Act, among other decisions. It’s odd to think of this most powerful person in the federal judiciary, 13 years into his tenure, as needing a friend, but perhaps he does, and just maybe Brett Kavanaugh is it.

Clearly, there is concern on the right about that very prospect. In a recent blog post on the website American Greatness, a conservative lawyer named Mark Pulliam, who describes himself as having “fled California” for his current home in Texas, addressed such fears and sought to allay them. “Commentators are reading all kinds of silly things into Kavanaugh’s failure to join Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch” in the Planned Parenthood cases, Mr. Pulliam wrote in an essay titled “Kavanaugh: Too Soon to Be Reading Tea Leaves.” “Good grief,” Mr. Pulliam exclaimed. “He’s only been sitting on the court for a couple of months — still learning where the bathrooms are.”

If despite Mr. Pulliam’s fondest wish the newest justice proves an ally for a chief justice caught in the middle, the real test may come when last week’s aggressively implausible decision purporting to render the Affordable Care Act unenforceable reaches the court. If there’s any fun to be had these days in contemplating the march of events, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial response to the decision is not to be missed. That newspaper has been relentlessly anti-Obamacare for years. Now its editorial board is nervous. “Texas Obamacare Blunder,” the editorial’s headline read, along with, “A judge’s ruling will be overturned and could backfire on Republicans.” The editorial warned that Democrats would use the decision “to further pound Republicans for denying health insurance for pre-existing conditions,” an issue that proved an albatross for Republican candidates in this fall’s midterm elections.

And here’s the really fun part. Back in 2012, Chief Justice Roberts saved the Affordable Care Act from the Republicans. Now influential voices on the right are being raised in prayer for him to save the law for the Republicans.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.