Above all, justices should be prudent. That means interpreting the questions in the case as narrowly as possible and avoiding establishing new, broad rules or sweeping precedents. In practice, the Court should correct injustices resulting from government action but it should very rarely create new positive rights or exemptions that upend the legislative process.
Hmm...I haven't really given much though to this question. I would say the "least prudent" justices seem to be Gorsuch and Sotomayor, which is funny considering they're ideological opposites. I think Roberts and Kavanaugh have prudent sensibilities, while Breyer's "pragmatism" is actually very encompassing and sweeping.
Going back a few years, I think Sandra Day O'Connor was the justice best in this mold. A lot of her opinions really delve into articulating and dissecting the specific fact patterns on which the cases turn, not making broad-sweeping generalizations that could be read as future precedent.
