You're on SCOTUS: What is you're guiding philosophy?

[Donerail]

But most importantly for me would be deference to both state governments and Congress as a general rule, as well as being fairly skeptical of presidential power, and perhaps even more so of delegated executive power (Cabinet departments and agencies etc.) -  even though I personally support much of what the federal government does and indeed, believe it should do a lot more on many issues of economic regulation and social policy.

I do look quite favorably on congressional oversight of executive power and believe it should be expanded and given more teeth; I suppose that's one answer to what I call the "elected vs. effective" problem of governance in a large, complex democracy like the US.

Well, that's the thing that would get you into trouble — it's one thing to appoint a right or a left-wing judge, but one that might actually curtail the executive power of the president who appointed them? Unacceptable.

[Kingpoleon]

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.  

It’s interesting that your judicial philosophy specifically contextualizes itself, but does it very distinctly from originalism. Would you say, then, that your judicial philosophy would have been quite unwilling to rule as the Court did in Marbury v. Madison?