Professor Bainbridge notes that Instapundit is disappointed in conservatives embrace of the Schiavo legislation because it violates the principals of federalism, which PB accuses GR of fetishizing. Nice.
My point is that not only is the difference between the two one of libertarian (more or less) v. conservative, it also reflects a difference in legal specialities. Constitutional lawyers have a much greater tendency to take a principle/doctrine to its absolute end (and often, beyond) - building doctrines on top of metaphors that are picked up from dissents years later. Business lawyers have much different styles. Essentially working out of contracts, the core doctrines of business and contract law are (in my opinion) of a very different character. They are more interested in balance and equity and are typically an outgrowth of the English common law tradition. It is a telling of the gradual accumulation of common sense intended to get at a right result. Doctrine plays a much more distant role.
My first semester in law school, I had Contracts immediately following Con Law and the contrast could not have been more stark between two radically different styles of thinking and legal reasoning. And I don't think it was a function of the professors - this was Yale,after all, even the business lawyers tended toward the ethereal and had never substantively practiced.