>

Show me in the constitution where it says gay people can't get married. Or where it says black and white people can't get married. Or where it says anything about abortion.
Switches as in consistently votes with the liberals on consequential decisions? Very little to no chance. A conservative appointee may not be totally in line with everything the GOP wants but usually by the time they get to that level they have a well documented history and legal theory which is quite different than the people Democratic presidents would nominate. They may be quite “independent” but not full fledged liberal.
If Dems want to get to a place where there is more equal ideological shift (or even a liberal majority) they need to either wait until conservative judges leave office or alternatively expand the court. Expanding the court would require abolishing the filibuster and there is the possibility the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional. If that happens it would trigger a potential crisis. >

Other than Robert not likely. Republicans learned a lesson with Souter and they not work hard to make sure the candidates are Federalist Society Approved. Democrats are likely going to apply strong tests to get close to the same results. >

Roberts the least of an ideologue out of the bunch.  It’s very possible he’ll be called out as a RINO in the coming years. >


It’s very possible he’ll be called out as a RINO in the coming years.

"In the coming years?" He's been decried as some kind of secret liberal almost since he took office - even as he voted almost continuously to support conservative causes, regardless of the law.
I regularly read about death threats against him during the last administration for his imagined betrayals of conservative ideology.
He's a conservative who likes to pretend he's above politics - even though that attitude has left him with no friends on either side. >

Will the people who voted to strip abortion rights and signaled that they would have no problem going after same-sex and interracial marriage wind up being liberal?
No. >

You mean the judges who are following the constitution