TGOFP wrote: Which is why this whole exercise is meaningless.
That's why "judicial philosphy" is, in the end, a marginal issue, mere window dressing. Judges are human and they make decisions just like the rest of us do. The skillful ones elegantly weave their views into the structure of some pre-defined "judicial philosophy" - but it's really just smoke and mirrors. This is what all lawyers do, and the best ones do it very well - making it seem as if the viewpoint they represent is the only and obvious answer, based on both the facts and the law. Many times in the history of the Supreme Court, precedent has been followed religiously, yet other times precedent has been cast aside. That's the way it always will be. It all comes down to the character of the justices, not any so-called judicial philosophy.
hmmm...you make an interesting point in post 40.