You said "in your life". The conservatives fought against the lifiting of Jim Crow in your lifetime. Conservatives want Roe reversed and abortion banned. IOW they wish The Government to have the right to impose involuntary servitude on fecund women - Am13 precludes state regulation. Striking is a form of "petitioning the government", suspension of Miranda has been a conservative goal ever since it passed - ie objections to the dismissal of cases where suspects have not been given adequate counsel on their Am5 and due process rights.

As I said, I can keep that list going and going. Yes liberals have sought to restrict individual rights in drug and gun realms as well. Never said they hadn't. YOU were the one who made the claim that conservatives want to limit government intrusion rather than to impose thei world-view even if that means intruding on rights and increasing the size of government. If that claim includes imposing their morality via the government then you have no basis for that claim.

As for criticizing the conservative justices for voting as conservatives, do you offer the same criticism of the liberal justices?

Liberals like me don't make the claim that "liberal" judges are somehow better arbiters of the original intent of the US Constitution. That "liberal judges" are ones that "interpret the original meaning of the US Constitution" as opposed to "conservaties that legislate invented rights from the bench".

As I said, Scalia and Thomas can construct Constitutional arguments that are every bit as sound as Roe and Griswold - but those arguements are not "originalist" or "textualist". So to claim that somehow conservatives want judges that stick to the Constitution as opposed to stick to their beliefs and find in the Constitution how to enable them is simply a lie.

As for language. "Bullshit" is a colloquial expression originating according to the Oxford Dictionary in 1915. Thus if you took the term "bullshit degsme" back to the Founding Fathers they MIGHT be able to understand it - since BULL as meaning nonsense dates back to the 17th century, but it would be pretty clear that there would be arguement about its meaning.

Similarly 200 years from now, it is likely that the relative strength and offensiveness of "bullshit" as an invective would be argued since it is very likely that other terms would be in common use instead. So the phrase

nor shall private property be taken for public bullshit, without just compensation

would NOT contain sufficient information to determine how strong an invective it is intended to be. Similarly there is not sufficient context to TEXTUALLY limit "use" in that same phrase to direct employment and to preclude "purpose".

From and "originalist" perspective, since The Government had no problem expropriating native land and giving it to private individuals, clearly there isn't a consistent limit on such action either.

No, there isn't sufficient Originalist or Textualist context to support Scalia's, Thomas', yours and my positions on Kelo. And yet both Scalia and Thomas constructed arguements. Arguements based in a CONTEMPORANEUS WEIGHTING and READING of the text ("the most natural reading...").

BTW, Roe created no "enforcement powers". It simply underscored the lack of States' power to regulate. Am 13, Am 4, Am 6 rights via Am14 incorporation preclude it being a "State's Rights" issue. That's not creation of new law under any rubrik. Where Roe is weak is in its finding that there even is a basic right to regulate at all. THAT is where "new law" was created.