A conservative jurist (say, in the mold of Justice Scalia) is often seen as being against things like gay rights and legalized abortion. It is more than just the fact that a conservative would naturally be against liberal positions on these issues. A conservative judge would typically look at the text of the Constitution and say that the right to privacy (and, consequently, a right to things like abortion) is nowhere to be found in the words of the Constitution.
This week, voters in South Dakota struck down the very strict anti-abortion law that had been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. For tic tac dough, the win, and the car, please explain why this may be seen as a victory by those who support a conservative view of the Constitution.
No, I am not talking about timing and tactics -- saying that they should wait until they get another justice on the bench. Why would Justice Scalia view the vote in South Dakota as a victory?