I think the CO case about the ballot is the first time I can remember that conservatives said "a state can't do that". Before it was always "the feds should let the states do what they want" (oversimplified, admittedly, but you get the point).

Oh, no - and we've talked about some of them.

The Second Amendment and gun control is the most notable recent example, of course. States wanted to regulate guns in a certain way, and the Court said they were prohibited from doing that because of the Second Amendment.

But it's not the only one. On the First Amendment, the Court's pushed back on the scope of State anti-discrimination laws (gay wedding cakes and the website designer) and efforts to get religion out of school events (football coach praying). The Court applied the 14th Amendment to strike state college efforts to promote college diversity/affirmative action. Their campaign finance jurisprudence also limits state regulations on campaign speech.

I think that you're starting to see some serious reversal in attitudes about the Court precisely because it's shifted from an institution that (mostly) reads the Constitution in a way that limits government power in ways that liberals have liked and towards ways that conservatives like.

So, yes, conservatives are going to start reversing their ideas about whether issues should be settled at the state or federal level - but I think you'll start to see progressives doing that as well, as the Court starts construing some of the limitations on state power to prohibit things that liberals want to see happen (like economic regulation).