The ideologues on the Right that made up the majority of a bunch of decisions recently seen frightfully bad judges. Their MO seems to be to predetermine the result they want, and then craft their decision to get that result, and try to make it as narrow as possible to keep from influencing later decisions.
This is really terrible in several ways. One, it makes it really hard for lower courts to make later decisions based on recent ones (eg: did the recent decision in re: Aereo negate the old Cablevision ruling?). Two, their narrowing sometimes fails (as is likely with the Hobby Lobby case; in fact, as they made clear the next day that one particular narrowing wasn't even intended).
Three, it makes clear that their intent is to make new law. Funny how we hear so much about "legislating from the bench" from right wing sources when it comes to abortion decisions, but nary a peep when it comes to, say, campaign financing laws.
And all of that reduces respect people have for the Court. Roberts, in his confirmation hearings, said he wanted to restore respect for the Court. If so, Mission Accomplished, I guess.