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...