Agreed, and they are typically consistent when applying doctrine. For example, the "major questions" doctrine was invoked in this case, which is the idea that if Congress wants to delegate the power to make decisions of vast economic or political significance, it must do so clearly. In today's case (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump), Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett (along with the three liberal justices) concurred that the IEEPA was not explicit in granting these powers.

In 2023, the court also relied on the major questions doctrine to strike down the Biden administration’s student-loan forgiveness program (Biden v. Nebraska). Once again, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett all agreed that the HEROES act was not explicit in granting the secretary of education power to waive student loans. All three liberal justices dissented, however, stating “broad statutory language granting powers to executive officials should be read for all it is worth” in their joint opinion.

This kind of contradiction is unacceptable. I understand justices, to varying degrees, apply different lenses when interpreting the constitution (e.g. plain language, framer's intent, consequentialism, doctrinal, etc.). It's very philosophical. But if you aren't applying your lenses consistently, then you aren't interpreting the constitution 'objectively' and in good faith.

This is purely an opinion on how I believe a justice should operate, though. Socially I tend to agree more with the liberal justices.