Often times Justice can have a particular perspective on how the Constitution should be interpreted, and two highly qualified jurists can come to opposite conclusion on exactly the same case. Most 5-4 cases are good examples of this.

What factor or perspective best describes how we can have this diametrically opposed position of top scholars and jurists?

Taking the Roper v Simmons 543 US 551 (2005) case the Rehnquist Court produced some spirited but opposite conclusions by justices. It was a 5-4 Court, with Kennedy writing for the majority.

Choose one of the dissenting Justices and compare the reasoning or perspective between these two giant legal minds.

Can you offer an explanation that would reconcile the divergent opinions? Are they really on opposite sides of the issue?
Or are they simply following a particular process to determine their vote?