Orin, you need to redo your hypothetical to make it more interesting. Currently, there’s an easy answer: Justice “Substance,” i.e., Justice “I don’t write opinions,” seems not to be doing the traditional work of judges. He is not offering written opinions to justify his conclusions, so he violates points 2, 4, 6 and 10. Justice Windowdressing, who says law is bunk, seems to violate (at least) 1, 5, 7, and 10. Perhaps you mean Justice Secret Windowdressing: he actually thinks law is bunk but he is careful never to tell anybody in public and nobody can tell from his opinions that he thinks law is bunk. (If they can, he is not very good at windowdressing.).