I wouldn’t describe her as a conservative either. She seemed to be less driven by ideology than any other member of the court in recent memory.
Agreed.
And my contribution of a case…
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), which struck RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was Congress’ failed attempt to get back at the Court after Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
Ah yes, the old “conservatives are whatever is bad” schtick that the Dope is so famous for. Are you seriously going to argue that conservatives are in favor of having the government take things by force?
Sounds like tax hikes to me, in fact. 
No - I am going to argue as I did that both the left and the right opposed Kelo. Do you have some kind of reading malfunction?
The line about Bush tax cuts was pretty clearly a joke. Possibly indicated as such for the humor impaired by the emoticon at the end of it.
But if you want to get into it, yes, conservatives are at times in favor of having the government take things by force, especially if they are to be given to loyal corporations. Like oil, for instance.
Conservatives have less to bitch about since the Court has a 5-4 conservative majority. Without looking, I only came up with Kelo off the top of my head - and on that one the dissent was driven by conservatives on the Court.
Kennedy v. Louisiana was a bad decision. I do not think it is wise for states to hand out the death penalty for child rape, but the states are entitled to make this bad choice so long as we choose to have a death penalty. The Supreme Court’s narrowing of the penalty in this way was a terrible overreach.
U.S. v. Stevens was a pretty bad decision - this case applied the ban on “crush videos” to dogfighting videos, but wound up invalidating the law that banned them both. I think Justice Alito’s dissent was spot on there.
I realize some of these don’t break down on pure left-right grounds, but this is my contribution to the debate.
Oh, yeah, in the famous case of Big Oil Co. v. Little Guy, where the oil under some guy’s property was awarded to the oil company on the grounds that they were mighty big.
What was that case citation again?
Oh yeah, I see where Chessic Sense’s question to me referred to Supreme Court cases.
Except it didn’t. He asked me if I felt that:
To which I responded that, at times, they were. So how in any possible way is your comment relevant?
I can’t understand why Palin botched that answer. She should have mentioned the Exxon Valdez decision:
Well, this entire freakin’ thread is about “Recent Supreme Court decisions conservatives dislike…” and Chessic Sense’s response to you was certainly in that context.
But I’m all for exploring the issue. So apart from court cases, when have conservatives advocated taking oil by force?
Actually no - if you bother to read both my post and Chessic Sense’s response, it is pretty clear it has nothing to do with Supreme Court decisions. It’s pretty clear it has something to do with the throwaway joke line I included after discussing a Supreme Court decision.
And if you honestly don’t know what I am talking about when I am talking about adovcating taking oil by force, then I’d run to a doctor to check for head injury inflicted over the weekend, because both you and I know you are smarter than that.
Ah, the old “My argument is so obvious I won’t even bother to state it,” ploy, eh?
Well, my rebuttal to whatever your example is is even more obvious, even more devastating to your premise, and so blindingly obvious that I, too, won’t bother to post it.
I win.
Fine. You win. It’s not a big deal. It’s irrelevant to this thread. I’ve got absolutely zero interest in getting into a debate over whether either Gulf War, or indeed any US foreign policy decision undertaken by conservatives, has been undertaken for the purpose of securing advantageous access to mineral (especially oil) rights for US corporations. Or if, for example, policy towards Chavez and Venezuela is influenced by that country’s oil reserves.
The worst part about that decision was Scalia’s 15 page dictum that was just basically a paean to puppy kicking.
Ah, well, at least it’s clearer to me now what the hell you were talking about.
Now go enjoy your victory.
One can also do the reverse - agree with a result, while acknowledging that the reasoning behind it was lamentably shaky.
*Kelo * is my favorite. It completely eviscerates the Right Wing Marketing Department’s claim to dislike activist judges or preference for textualist approaches.
They want the court to step in to a State matter (where is direct textual cite for the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment?) and interject their judgment over the Connecticut legislature’s judgment of what is and is not a public purpose.
I presume it was overturned on grounds of being a “cruel or unusual punishment”? I can certainly see a rational argument that a penalty might be cruel and unusual for one crime, but reasonable for another. I happen to disagree with precisely where the line was drawn in this case, but I do recognize that such a line can be drawn.