I can't cite a case, which doesn't mean there isn't one, but I feel this is back and forth is becoming a tangent with no relation to my original point. What the courts have or haven't done is not the point; what they should be doing is. I'm not going to keep chasing my tail on this subject; if I wanted to engage in that kind of no-win argument I'd stay in the GOP and help them in their daily pillow fights with the Democrats.
It was that nobody but the GOP is hurt by not having a GOP controlled Senate. I gave the Boy Scouts of America case as an example of something which would have gone the other way if not for Republicans. You didn't seem to think that amounted to much then asserted that the conservatives are no good on other things, like drug laws, and that they'll lock up drug users which you didn't think was a good idea. I said that drug laws are passed by the elected representatives of the people and not the courts. You in turn said that the conservative judges refuse to rule that all the drug laws are unconstitutional so they're at fault. I asserted that drug laws are not in themselves unconstitutional. You cited the Tenth Amendment and the preamble to the constitution. I asserted that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows the federal government to outlaw drug trafficking across state lines and that the preamble was just a general philosophical statement and doesn't have any specific application and challenged you to cite a case where it did.
So, I reiterate, cases like the Boy Scouts of America's (successful) attempt to retain their First Amendment rights of Freedom of Association and Freedom of Religion are at stake when the U.S. Senate (and White House) changes hands.