In the Roberts memos, the most frequent criticism of federal policies to protect the vulnerable is that court enforcement of them is "intrusive." Of course without such protection, employers fire people for being the wrong race or sex, voting officials turn people at the polls, drawers of urban boundaries isolate blacks in the inner city, officials can arrest and hold people indefinitely on suspicion of being terrorists, etc. and these acts would seem pretty intrusive as well. As Lincoln put it:

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep is a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty.

I'm not saying conservatives got all this wrong. The Warren Court and other pioneers of the federal rights revolution overreached in many ways and made plenty of mistakes. Some of their structural remedies, like busing to integrate schools, turned into huge messes in cities determined to resist them. Others, like decisions protecting drug dealers in public housing from eviction, did positive harm. Others unduly and clumsily interfered with efficient government and benefits administration and flexible employer discretion, just as conservatives said they did.
 
More Bob, please!