That's not really possible. There's no doubt that Kagan and Sotomayor are great legal minds, and yet they clearly vote based on how they want the law to be. Ginsburg is not a great legal mind, and is unabashed in her efforts to read the law in whichever way her personal politics requires, so I suppose that somebody like that could be kept off the court with your desired standard. Kennedy too, although in Kennedy's case, you could substitute a coin flip to break 4-4 ties and get equally valid results.
Roberts is a great legal mind, but he's a pussy, so he won't make the unpopular decisions. Scalia was a lot like Kagan and Sotomayor. He used his legal acumen to get the result he wanted. Even the most consistent and intellectually honest justice, i.e. Thomas, has an ideology that will lead to certain predictable results. It happens, in my opinion, to come closest to the original conception of the role of the judiciary, but it is at odds with the role the judicial elites have carved out for themselves in our Constitutional system. Most judges today see themselves as a sort of meta-legislature, whose role it is to turn an ambiguous law created by the real legislature (or even a controversy unaddressed by the real legislature) into a part of the common law they think will be good for society.
