Here is a fun time wasting exercise (which I found through Feminist Mormon Housewives). This quiz will ask you your opinion on various cases that came before the Supreme Court last term and you can see which justices ruled your way. Of course, it is terribly misleading because one line questions cannot possibly convey all the crucial details of the cases that actually went before the Supreme Court. And the questions are framed in terms of what you think the law should be as opposed to the question the judges were deciding-- which is what the law is or whether it is constitutional.
But enough of technicalities . . . apparently, I tend to agree with David Souter more often than the other justices. I like that result. He has always struck me as a solid, common sense thinker. A lot of conservatives are howling about how they were duped back in 1990 into believing that he was more conservative than he really is, but if I understand correctly, he was much more conservative when he was appointed than he is now. He has moved steadily leftward during his time on the Supreme Court.
The thing is that the very process of hashing things out with eight other brainy people, and having to consider other points of view, and defend one's assertions can be a very liberalizing experience. Justice Blackmun is another example of that phenomenon. And Chief Justice Rehnquist (still considered to be an arch-conservative justice) wrote one of my very favorite pro-feminist opinions (that's a teaser, more on that later).
As for Justice Scalia, I think he is one of the most intelligent judges. If you listen to oral arguments (on the "May It Please the Court" series, for example), he often asks the most incisive questions. But man, he has (in my view) no grasp of reality. I am still flabbergasted years later at his statement that innocent people are unlikely to flee the police. As a former prosecutor, I know that innocent people are often frightened of the police. It amazes me that a Supreme Court justice can be so naive.