An article (see also*) about Justice Stevens included this tidbit, which is something of boilerplate but still has some bite:
“What really for me marks a conservative judge is one who doesn’t decide more than he has to in order to do his own job,” he said, relaxed in shirt sleeves and his signature bow tie in chambers floodlit by April sunshine. “Our job is to decide cases and resolve controversies. It’s not to write broad rules that may answer society’s questions at large.”
In an early opinion, he noted:
For the proposition that regulation of the minimum price of a commodity -- even labor -- will increase the quantity consumed is not one that I can readily understand. That ... merely reflects my views on a policy issue which has been firmly resolved by the branches of government having power to decide such questions. ... My disagreement with the wisdom of this legislation may not, of course, affect my judgment with respect to its validity.
Reasonable "conservative" legal scholars realize it applies to the health legislation as well, even if they don't care for it or the current doctrine. Efforts to the contrary by some over at Volokh Conspiracy, notwithstanding. For instance, some of the justices who guided the New Deal jurisprudence they abhor were not always a big fan of the legislation involved. In one case, with apparent pleasure from him, an interviewer called Justice Brandeis a "conservative."
But, things have changed a bit since a Republican President who as a legislator tried to get his predecessor impeached, nominated him, perhaps.
---
* The NYT article suggested some reasons why Stevens seemed tired when reading his dissent in a recent case. This article cites one of his former law clerks for some personal touches. Her blog suggests someone quite interesting in her own right. Overall, her writings as well as others suggest why Stevens will be missed when he does retire.
BTW, the book on justices just cited makes me wish for a Chief Justice appointment like Charles Evans Hughes. His successor (also covered by the volume) was fine on some levels, but deemed by many not as good of a Chief Justice. The skills of Warren are known, but he isn't quite on the level of Hughes. Those afterward were a mixed lot on some levels (Rehnquist was a good CJ in various ways), but all had a certain taint as ideological appointments, even if they had other talents.