Dangers in Labelling

During his introduction to the the course, Professor G.E. White laid out his objections to the labelling of Supreme Court justices as 'liberals' and 'conservatives.' For one, it obfuscates the differences between political and judicial flavors of liberalism and conservatism. In addition, the labels attempt to apply contemporary definitions to historical periods so different from our own that the labels fail to convey anything meaningful. Was Frankfurter a liberal or a conservative? Holmes? Does that mean a judicial liberal (e.g. an activist) or a political liberal (e.g. a New Dealer)?

I can certainly understand the use of such terms by those making generalizations, or those without access to or understanding of the full historical context of the times. But I think White makes a very good point as it concerns historians, legal academics, and law students. We don't have the excuse of ignorance, and shouldn't make the excuse of laziness.