But I feel comfortable making my victory claim just based upon history. First, too many people judge a court's direction by maybe one case a year, when a fair examination shows the various shifting alliances among the justices.
Second, unlike some here, I don't view a case like the gerrymandering cases, to be a conservative vs. liberal outcome. Let's say the court refuses to set aside partisan gerrymandering. Is that a conservative victory as some here claim? In that individual case it may be because it may have been passed by a conservative state legislature to protect conservative seats. But is it really? Partisan gerrymandering isn't limited to conservatives. That's what has always frustrated me about politics. People are so short-sighted. They think they can gain an advantage by partisan gerrymandering, or by adding 4 Supreme Court seats, but who says your party will always be in power, even with gerrymandered districts?
Partisan gerrymandering sucks, and it should definitely be outlawed, but if it isn't I certainly don't deem it any sort of victory for conservatives.