What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations

Opinion:
HARBISON-WALKER REFRACTORIES, A DIVISION OF DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIECK
No. 87-271.
Argued October 31, 1988
Decided December 12, 1988
822 F. 2d 52,
Andrew M. Kramer argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Envin N. Griswold, David A. Copus, Patricia A. Dunn, and James P. Hollihan.
Brian J. Martin argued the cause for the United States et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. On the brief were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds, Deputy Solicitor General Merrill, Charles A. Rothfeld, and Charles A. Shanor.
James H. Logan argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Julius L. Chambers, Charles Stephen Ralston, Ronald L. Ellis, and Eric Schnapper.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America by John C. Unkovic and Stephen A. Bokat; and for the Equal Employment Advisory Council by Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, and Ann Elizabeth Reesman.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Association of Retired Persons by Alfred Miller, Steven S. Honigman, Christopher G. Mackaronis, and Cathy Ventrell-Monsees; and for the Plaintiff Employment Lawyers Association by Paul H. Tobias.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Justice White dissents.

Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 0