Ideology?

I have been doing some reading up on the Supreme Court. Namely, the upcoming open seat. President Obama will make what will be one of his lasting legacies by who he appoints. This will affect every person in this country for decades.
I personally believe that beyond going to war, this is the most important thing any president will do. I have read several articles and watched a few pundits on TV talk about this. They keep talking about ideology.
The thing that I don't understand about this is if a judge does the job that they are supposed to do, ideology has nothing to do with it. The job is no more or no less than following the constitution as written. Judges on lower courts make difficult decisions all the time.
Much of the divisiveness we have in this country is because of the courts. I am not talking about the everyday criminal courts, I am specifically referring to district courts and the supreme court. All across the country the courts are making decisions that have more to do with ideology than the rule of law. Gay Marriage for one. This is a state legislative issue. Vermont legalized it through the state legislator, like it should be done. California put it on the state ballot, which seems to be the way to do things in that state. In one instance it passed, in the other it failed. The courts have no place in this issue. Some states will legalize, while others will not.
During the election I talked to people all the time. I volunteered for Senator McCain's campaign. I made phone calls as well as doing canvassing door-to-door. So I heard people tell me their view points and what was important to them. Most of the issues were economic, but many had to do with the power of the government. This power will only be increased if we don't stop putting people on the bench who think that they are legislators. If you don't believe that you need to look no further than the lady in Connecticut who lost her home to eminant domain. No where in the constitution is it written that a home can be taken away to increase tax revenues for a government entity. This was a clear cut case of judicial activism that was disguised as the common good. That law is in place for land that is needed for public works, not to increase condo and office space.
Robert Gibbs, press secretary for President Obama, recently was quoted "Somebody that understands the rule of law, somebody that has a record of excellence and integrity, somebody who also understands how these opinions affect everyday lives and will exercise some common sense". Sounds good on the outside, but if you read it more carefully he is saying that an activist will be chosen. Is it common sense that an obviously guilty person is let go due to police misconduct? Of course it is not, but it is the law. All parts of the system must act in accordance to the law. If the law is no good, than you remedy that at the legislative level. That is what it is there for.
I did on occasion run into people who were undecided during the run-up to the election, this was the one issue that I kept bringing up to those people. I would tell them to ask themselves if they wanted someone on the bench who made decisions based on ideology or the constitution. Ideology has no place in a courtroom.