Sure- but then you have to be careful defining labels.

Trying to peg a generic one dimensional (left-right) or even two dimensional (social/fiscal) political position on justices is difficult, even with loosely defined labels/ categories.

It's much easier to look at justices relative position/ rank on a per-topic basis.

Alternatively, and less useful to the general public, but very useful to SCOTUS junkies, is looking at cross tabs of how often a particular justice votes with others. Especially when they break from the publically perceived left/right voting block, which is more often than most think.

Scotusblog is full of this type of analysis for those interested:

https://www.scotusblog.com/category/empirical-scotus/

https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

This is really an important distinction. Social issues like gay marriage and things like this are completely orthogonal. The Democratic Party as a whole is very much neoliberal or liberal as opposed to left. Liberal judges are much the same.

Is it would be positively apocalyptic to reign in the all-powerful unelected fourth branch of government the framers conveniently forgot to list in the constitution. Or to prevent Congress from creating executive branch entities that exercise the powers of all three branches of government. The SEC can make rules, sue you for violating them, and then adjudicate your violation, all under one roof. Pretty sure that’s exactly how Congress intended separation of powers to work!

They had a chance to end California's housing disaster in Nordlinger vs. Hahn but ruled in the favor of landlords and speculators. Justice Stevens even admitted that the law is unlikely to change under standard democratic processes.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html

Could you explain what you mean here? I assume from your reply to 'rayiner that you are criticising recent decisions limiting Chevron deference and applying the nondelegation doctrine. It’s confusing, because big business won the case establishing Chevron deference. Whether the principle helps big business or not depends on big business’s relationship with the relevant regulator. Is the “apocalyptic” commentary describing the past effects of Chevron deference, the current effects of limiting it, or the potential effects of future decisions further limiting it?

It's not a strawman at all, as the original statement is clearly setting up the flip side of that argument - that left-leaning justices are less likely to do so.