I think we should distinguish between anti-establishment tendencies, and radicalism. Conservatives may be radical in that they'd seek to roll back progress in liberal societies. But being elitists, they'd also inevitably re-impose an authoritative establishment, a power elite to dominate the masses.

Does a true conservative conserve any old tradition, even a liberal one that's all about rapid improvement (change)? I think not. What the Supreme Court is doing is favouring the dominators that arise in the capitalistic private sector, at the expense of the federal level of governmental dominance. They do this in the name of "freedom," but that's just a sales ploy. What these conservatives conserve is nature's power to decide who rules and who submits. It's always, at bottom, social Darwinism when it comes to figuring out the backwardness of conservative shenannigans.

Saying that these conservative judges are "Christian" is like saying a racist ten thousand years from now will be a Nazi. No, these religions or ideologies evolve. American Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus's counterculture, and Christianity made its peace with secularism a long time ago with a host of political, anti-spiritual compromises. Conservative Christianity is also implicitly socially Darwinian.

We need to look past the theological rhetoric, and to zero in on the effects of the policies. Deeds speak louder than words. My mantra is: "Never take a conservative's statements or self-image at face value." In other words, assume the worst of the conservative, no matter what she merely says.