The Supreme Court isn't just divided along liberal and conservative lines. Even its conservative majority is divided.
On questions as different as gay marriage, freedom of speech and police searches, the five justices appointed by Republican presidents come to different conclusions.
The Washington Examiner reviewed dozens of Supreme Court cases from the last several years to find cases where the conservative justices split on substantive issues.
Below are 10 where the five differed. To find out which one you would have voted most like, take this short quiz.
The individual insurance mandate
The issue: As part of the Affordable Care Act, Congress required that Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine on their taxes.
The split: Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's liberals to uphold the mandate in a 5-4 decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.
A federal anti-gay marriage law
The issue: The federal Defense of Marriage Act barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
The issue: In Maryland, police regularly took cheek swabs of people who had been arrested and analyzed their DNA.
Signatures on a petition
The issue: An anti-gay marriage group sued to block the release of the names of people who signed its petition to put a referendum on the ballot in Washington state.
The issue: A film producer was convicted of selling videos of pitbulls fighting under a law barring “depictions of animal cruelty.”
The issue: An Arizona law required voters prove their citizenship with extra documentation not required under the National Voter Registration Act.
The split: In a 7-2 decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the Supreme Court found that the federal law trumped the state one. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.
The issue: Two 14-year-olds from Alabama and Arkansas were given mandatory life sentences with no possibility of parole.
The split: In Miller v. Alabama, Kennedy joined the court's liberals to find that mandatory life sentences with no parole for defendants under 18 were cruel and unusual punishment.
The issue: A dozen states and several cities sued the Environmental Protection Agency, arguing that it needs to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.
The split: In Massachusetts v. EPA, Kennedy joined the court's liberals to find that the EPA is required to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The issue: Police in Miami brought a drug-sniffing dog to the front door of a home where they suspected people of growing marijuana, then used it to get a search warrant.
The split: In a 5-4 decision in Florida v. Jardines, justices Thomas and Scalia joined three liberals to find that bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the front door of a home required a warrant.
The issue: A class-action civil rights suit charged that prison overcrowding in California violated the constitutional rights of prisoners.
The split: In a 5-4 decision in Brown v. Plata, Kennedy joined the court's liberals in upholding a lower court decision which ordered California to reduce its prison population.