Oh really?

From Federalist speech by Justice Thomas:
OUR ROLE AS JUDGES WAS TO BE CONFINED TO THE WORDS OF THOSE WHO DRAFTED THE CONSTITUTION OR ENACTED THE LAW IN QUESTION AND WHAT THOSE WORDS MEANT TO THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY WERE DRAFTED. IN SHORT, THE ORIGINAL MEANING. WE AS JUDGES DO NOT GET TO FREELANCE OR PUT OUR PERSONAL GLOSS ON THESE LAWS. EVEN IN AREAS IN WHICH OTHERS MIGHT JUST TUNE OUT FROM BOREDOM, SUCH AS [patent law,] JURISDICTION, STANDING, OR RIPENESS, JUSTICE SCALIA WAS EVER VIGILANT, GUARDING AGAINST JUDICIAL POWER BEING EXERCISED WHERE JUDGES HAD NO AUTHORITY. THUS ENCROACHING ON THE AUTHORITY OF OTHER BRANCHES OR THE STATES. ONCE THIS ABIDING CONCERN IN JUSTICE SCALIA'S COMMITMENT TO THE CANNONS OF -- CANONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WHO ELSE WOULD LABOR SO DILIGENTLY AND EXHAUSTIVELY ON A BOOK ON THE 57 CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION? AS AN ASIDE, I WATCHED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS AS HE DRAGGED HIMSELF OUT OF HIS OFFICE AFTER LABORING OVER HIS COURT WORK ONLY TO WORK ENDLESS HOURS ON HIS BOOK, "READING LAW." AS COMPLICATED AND INTRICATE AS THESE CANONS MAY SOUND, THEY ALL SERVE A SINGLE PURPOSE, UPHOLD THE STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR LIBERTIES. WE AS JUDGES EMPLOY THE CANONS TO DISCERN THE COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD MEANING OF THE WORDS CHOSEN BY CONGRESS. WE DO NOT RESORT TO OUR OWN PREDILECTIONS TO DIVINE WHAT CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE INTENDED.

Oh really?
And that's what you guys did in Alice, in Bilski, in Myriad?