None of your examples are about how he looks at the particular issues in this case though. You've arbitrarily grouped this case with the several others above by putting them all on an axis of whether he's anti-consumer or pro-consumer. You may choose to perceive justices on these ideological axes, but these ideological axes are probably not what determines how they vote, even if there are sometimes strong correlations.
It doesn't matter the theory driving his votes, it matters the outcome. If you vote against say, civil rights, because you have some super-nuanced view about how the court can or can not be involved in respect to state politics, you're still propping up Jim Crow laws.
Read up on Baker v Carr which touched on the issue of redistricting. Specifically on whether the court could intervene in a state perogative case. On one side were a set of justices who believed that the court couldn't since they would be interfering in state matters. On the other side were justices who believed the court was the only possible body who could restore the voting power of minorities.
Strong first principles are great when we're arguing philosophy but it's pretty bad when we're preventing millions from exercising a fundamental right. The soldier who carries out atrocities because he believes in the duty of following orders is no less guilty of the atrocity.
This doesn't mean that the end justifies the means but it means that we must judge our course of action and the actions of others with their full weight, not only intention or goal but the direct cost too.
