The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia (2012) (newrepublic.com)

Still, I think the "coincidence" of rulings that happen to agree with personal beliefs is hard to ignore. But this isn't limited to Scalia at all, but seems to be a "feature" of (almost?) all human psychology. I thought this New Yorker story captured it well:

  Yet, if a textual interpretation can be so altered by a 
  single vote as to mean exactly the opposite of what it had 
  officially been thought to mean, then surely it seems less 
  like a disinterested interpretation than like a 
  passionately held opinion trying to pass as a disinterested 
  interpretation. If four English professors, readers of “The 
  Pickwick Papers,” held that Mr. Pickwick was meant to be 
  the embodiment of intrinsic evil, and four others that he 
  was the embodiment of bourgeois benevolence, we would not 
  say that the solution was to add a ninth English professor. 
  We would say that they were making incompatible readings of 
  the same text because of strong and irreconcilable 
  differences in values and beliefs and expectations. We 
  would recognize that the difference must lie less in the 
  words of the text than in the mind of the reader. (To be 
  sure, English professors sometimes do argue in this way—but 
  that is why David Lodge and Malcolm Bradbury write comic 
  novels about them.) A form of reasoning that can produce 
  such directly opposed results certainly looks like a kind 
  of rationale-seeking in the guise of reasoning.