Here's one article.
Among the text are summaries from various scare ads.
"Wood ruled that peaceful abortion demonstrators should be punished under the same law that applies to mob bosses," said one Internet ad launched by conservative groups Monday.
O...k. Fine. It's a goddamned abortion judgment that Wood was on the wrong side of. They can be annoyed about that (it's hard to find non-partisan discussion of the case that actually says what happened - by which I mean the two major resources I found were prolife.org and NOW).
Another ad, with ominous music playing, says that as dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan "kicked the military off campus during a time of war."
Rather, she did exactly what Harvard Law School had done for years before DoD tried to short-circuit them: barring a non-equal-opportunity employer from using college resources to access potential recruits. See
here. But technically, yes. She did tell the military to stop recruiting all of the straights on-campus during a war.
In Sotomayor's court, still another ad says, "the content of your character is not as important as the color of your skin."
Wait. What?
There doesn't seem to be any controversial race-based cases on the
Wikipedia page.
EDITED: Apparently, they're talking about an affirmative-action case in which promotion exams were thrown out when too many white people passed compared to minorities. This is a million times better than when there was no explanation, when it seemed like they just couldn't come up with anything worse than her being Latina.