Almost all of it is framed in the context of the liberal/conservative policy debate, as if the Supreme Court is the third branch of the legislature. The debate is all about policy and outcomes: "fairness", "social justice", "women's rights", abortion (pro or con), ad infinitum.
[It is also absurd to tar Kagan or any other Solicitor General (see Robert Bork) with her advocacy positions as Solicitor General, as if she were her own client instead of representing the United States before the court. If Obama wanted to jail every Fox News correspondent on earth, it would be her job to make the case before the court, and her job as a justice to throw it out.]
When I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.
When you look at his record - when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American's individual rights.