and it is an oversimplification to try to break the court down to liberal vs. conservative. Also there are some things that ought to be conserved such as the freedom of the press.
Consider the Campaign Finance Law. Liberals usually uphold the freedom of the press, but even the ACLU could not sway the moderates and liberals as you defined them. Only the judges you rated as most conservative opposed this congressional overreaching.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1674.html(from McConnel v. Campaign Finance Law)
"In addition to arguing that §316(b)(2)'s segregated-fund requirement is underinclusive, some plaintiffs contend that it unconstitutionally discriminates in favor of media companies. FECA §304(f)(3)(B)(i) excludes from the definition of electioneering communications any "communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate." 2 U. S. C. A. §434(f)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2003). Plaintiffs argue this provision gives free rein to media companies to engage in speech without resort to PAC money. Section 304(f)(3)(B)(i)'s effect, however, is much narrower than plaintiffs suggest. The provision excepts news items and commentary only; it does not afford carte blanche to media companies generally to ignore FECA's provisions. The statute's narrow exception is wholly consistent with First Amendment principles. "A valid distinction ... exists between corporations that are part of the media industry and other corporations that are not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public." Austin, 494 U. S., at 668. Numerous federal statutes have drawn this distinction to ensure that the law "does not hinder or prevent the
institutional press from reporting on, and publishing editorials about, newsworthy events." Ibid. (citations omitted); see, e.g., 2 U. S. C. §431(9)(B)(i) (exempting news stories, commentaries, and editorials from FECA's definition of "expenditure"); 15 U. S. C. §§1801-1804 (providing a limited antitrust exemption for newspapers); 47 U. S. C. §315(a) (excepting newscasts, news interviews, and news documentaries from the requirement that broadcasters provide equal time to candidates for public office).89 (end quote) (my emphasis)
It seems that we are soon to have an "institutional press" rather than an individual right to speak, broadcast, and publish our ideas. That is what gives me nightmares, and it is being done by and large by "liberal" judges at precisely the worst time. Note that there is a spate of media conglomeration going on, which is being abetted by the right wing multinational corporate types who are pushing to ease restrictions on media corporations owning multiple stations.
Below is a little historical background on the meaning of the term "freedom of the press".
From Virginia BoR
Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition.
That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.