Don't forget the mischiefmeister himself, Stevens. But I was distinguishing between bad judging and bad constitutional law. O'Conner was correct on the constitution more than, say, Stevens. But judges are supposed to draw clear lines so folks can predicate their behavior on those lines. That's part of the rule of law is knowing what the law is. O'Conner's decisions gave you no idea how the Court would go in the next similar case.
At least Stevens, Breyer and Ginsberg are clear: Whatever the ACLU wants to be unconsitutional, is. You can predicate behavior on a bad constitutional ruling.
Keep in mind, too, that when it comes to bending the Constitution, Sandra Day O'Connor was one of the chief architects of the novel practice of basing SCOTUS decisions on "international law and custom."
This open-ended legal atrocity is actually fairly recent. Next thing you know, they will be citing sharia law, perhaps in some forthcoming decision permitting polygamy, wife beating, and stoning of rape victims. After all, there is ample precident for these practices in foreign law all over the globe.