Unfortunately I don't have exact cases, but there are many claims that conservative justices are very much "states rights" when it comes to things like abortion, but very much not "states rights" when it comes to things like gun control.
That is because of the incorporation of the bill of rights. The current interpretation of the 14th amendment is that some of the Amendments in Bill of Rights apply to both the federal and state governments.
The second amendment is one of those amendments (at least according to the conservative justices) and as such they should be protected at the federal level.
Abortion is not listed in the constitution and as such the 10th amendment takes precedence and the states can decide.
The more liberal justices do the same thing with amendments and come up with their own justification for which amendments are fully and partially incorporated.
I understand "tradition" can play a role in jurisprudence, but this is clearly a bit much.
Really to find super-obvious examples look at almost any judgement by Thomas, or Alito.
The others (Roberts,Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett & Gorsuch have all been able to partly go against perceived partisanship now and then.
This doesn't mean that there isn't left-wing jurisprudence operated by the "progressive" side of the aisle, but generally (I feel) it's more rare. Maybe if the court were 6-3 in the other direction it would be similar, where a couple extremist outliers would consistently vote with a strong Partisan bias.
The weakening/overturning of the of federal oversight of the south's voting processes, which was originally mandated by the Voting Rights Act, is another one I would call pretty partisan. But that's just my view. YMMV.
https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/does-standing-follow-th...
That can be said about justices on all parts of the political spectrum. For just a couple of examples of egregious decisions by liberal justices pushing their own agendas, see: Kelo v. New London, Wickard v. Filburn.
That's what OP is saying - someone wasted a ton of time and money on lawyers to receive a verdict that they should have known was coming.
I will say that Kavanaugh has been a surprising force on the court, tending to vote by what he thinks the law says, so I'm not trying to blame any specific party here, just individuals that I probably do not need to name because it has been so prominent in the news cycle the last few years.
When was it ever not corrupted with parties? Marbury v. Madison happened in 1803 so at most 15 years.
He enshrined judicial review, which was very much up to debate, as a power the Supreme Court had. This power was then extended past federal laws into state laws. This is the exact thing that the Federalists wanted and the Democratic-Republicans opposed. Madison himself thought the congress should be able to veto state laws saying that it was "absolutely necessary to a perfect system".
The current crop of Supreme Court justices are no where near as talented so their decisions are more blatant and immediate. Marshall was able to look long term and got his party what they wanted.
This is a pretty clear first amendment issue that shouldn’t divide among party lines. Party lines shouldn’t even be a thing in the SC, but unfortunately that ship has sailed. The law is clear about this so the “progressive” judges wrote their opinion about what the law says. That is more than can be said about some of the more conservative justices, who don’t really seem to care as much about what the law says rather than pushing personal/political/financial agendas.