Local control. Opposition to quotas. Few would have argued these were core conservative positions until recently. Now we have the sorry spectacle of Republicans calling for a 'quota', saying that the Scalia seat is a conservative seat and therefore they will not act on Judge Garland's nomination. It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous. It is interesting that the Republicans do not even attempt to justify their opposition on any other grounds than his replacement by a Democratic President might tilt the Court Left. Well, duh. The people elected Obama and he gets the pick. I have been lobbying Senators ( my own are hopeless so I call other states senators) to not hold hearings on any nominee not named by a President Sanders or Clinton. The Democrats must not be the 'responsible adults' this time. We must pout and throw tantrums just like Congressional Republicans. An eight member, Scalia less court already induced Dow to pay out instead of appealing to a court not tilted to the Right. I am sure Judge Garland is the most moderate judge they will get to pick because our next President is either gonna be a woman or a radical Jew. The other dear conservative issue is local control. It looks like local control if you want to pollute or exploit workers but strict state control if a locality wants to pursue Progressive ideas. It seems the end justifies any mean to our present, purely opportunistic Right wingers. I grew up in a National Review reading household and am well versed in post Buckley conservatism. Today's Right seems devoid of ideology except naked power. They might feign allegiance to Hayek or some Austrian but really they are after naked power distributed as it has traditionally been in the USA; to Whites, particularly Rich White Males. Local control? Only if you have bad intentions.