DL: ...the idea that they decide matters on a case-by-case basis is shattered.

You have to be pretty naive to think that Supreme Court Justices have been studiously deciding cases only on a case-by-case basis, ignoring any future implications of their decisions, for the past 200+ years. Hello, Marbury v. Madison, anyone? In fact, I would think that any Justice that did not consider future implications of a decision would be pretty much negligent in his or her duties.

Second, is it really earth-shattering to learn that some Justices have cultivated a defined jurisprudence that guides how they approach cases? From Chief Justice John Marshall, the noted Federalist who stood athwart the plans of Thomas Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists, to Justices Holmes, Black, Brandeis, Brennan...the list is long. And typically, the more notable Justices were the ones who did have an ideology that stood out as compelling.

The only difference, it seems, is that Justice Scalia is willing to put his mouth where his quill is. The only thing that shatters is the silly notion that Supreme Court Justices -- the people who sit at the very highest chair in the federal judiciary -- simply don't think much about the law outside of whatever happens to land on their desk. If there was ever a position from where it would be most apt for someone to contemplate the whole of the law, the U.S. Supreme Court would be it. And I would hope that every Justice has had such thoughts during their tenure, if they weren't having them already. It's no secret that the Justices have pre-conceived notions about things, just like every other lawyer out there. Why should we pretend they are sphynxes?