Sometimes I get the feeling that SCOTUS thinks they have said something meaningful when they haven't. It would be a decent study to see if judges are just re-ap

Sometimes I get the feeling that SCOTUS thinks they have said something meaningful when they haven't. It would be a decent study to see if judges are just re-applying their priors but, of necessity, using the language of Bilski. That would be better than statements about conclusions, since it would help build a clear set of criteria the Court can apply to itself when they want their ruling to have a predictable effect.