The Court has a pretty spotty record (to put it mildly) on defending human rights (espcially vis. race, which this case certainly smacks of, even if in a subtextual way). They had a decades long hot streak from the mid-1950s until the Roberts court, but that is gone for a while. Even if Garland is confirmed, or if Clinton appoints a reasonable person next year, some of these precedents will last a long time. For example, it's sill valid legal precedent to intern racial minorities during war time. Without an amendment, Citizen's United and it's lesser known bastard child McCutcheon (among other horrible Roberts court decisions) could still be law 70 years from now.