No, social conservatives, like me, are constitutionalists and we take the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government to heart.
So when judicial oligarchy rears its ugly head, which it does ever so more often these days, we oppose it on Constitutional grounds.
Judicial tyranny is the problem, not social conservatives.
The type I'm talking about begins with being a social conservative (not necessarily including all though). When one of that type encounters liberal causes that trample on states' rights (Roe v. Wade) or individual rights (gun control), he is a strict constitutionalist calling for the rights of the states and people to be supported over federal tyranny. That their victories occur in the judicial is not an issue; we're talking about federal power (whether it be legislative, executive or judicial) versus state and individual rights.
However, when the subject is a pet cause of social conservatives such as national drug laws, censorship laws or man/woman marriage laws, he suddenly becomes a constitutional liberal who doesn't care that they are egregious examples of the federal government seizing power to step on the rights of the states and/or people.