Medary.com

At Cato.org:

Contrary to popular belief, conservative justices are about as likely to vote in favor of individuals bringing First Amendment challenges to government regulations as are the liberals. Indeed, the justice most likely to vote to uphold a First Amendment claim is the "conservative" Justice Anthony Kennedy. The least likely is the "liberal" Justice Stephen Breyer. Consistent with general conservative/liberal patterns in commercial speech cases, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have voted to invalidate restrictions on advertising more than 75 percent of the time. Justices Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, meanwhile, have voted to uphold such restrictions in most cases.

For conservatives, libertarians, and classical, old-school liberals, rights are fundamental; for leftists, rights are conditional.  It's as simple as that.  Do you really want someone sitting on the Supreme Court saying that your rights depend on other things, beyond your control?  That's what four of the nine current Justices believe.

Maybe it's time to start asking the two main Presidential candidates what kind of Justices they would appoint to the Supreme Court.  Justices that believe that rights are fundamental, or Justices that believe that rights aren't.

(Of course, a right that depends on external factors isn't really a right at all, is it?  It's a priviledge--a gift from those in power, like for instance Supreme Court Justices.  Just a thought.)