If you're talking about Gorsuch on the court, his appointment does not change the balance of the Supreme Court. One conservative just was swapped in for one conservative justice who died. In general, even if it had been swapping a conservative justice for a liberal one most Supreme Court justices respect stare decisis and - at most - make incremental changes.

I agree.

I mean if one of them dies or retires, the court moves swiftly to the FAAAAAAAAR right.

Right?

None of the liberal justices died last year, and even if they had, a death on the court doesn't create shaky legal grounds for specific cases. Only a change in a common law underpinning all of them, or a supreme Court decision overruling or modifying an earlier decision on which they all relied would place them on shaky legal grounds.

That has nothing to do with whether I am concerned about a growing trend toward conservatism on the court, in the wake of the big jerk's election. Only that his election did not change the legal solidity of a select group of cases.

Griswold v. Connecticut
The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy"

These repuke fuckwits are coming after everything....

It's only fair.

Thomas is in an interracial marriage so I highly doubt he would vote down loving and I also think that the rest would be loathe to do so. Even the Justice Department brief in favor of the baker in CO made clear that racial discrimination couldn't be excused by religious fervor. Gideon has major friends in the legal community on all sides and would likely still be 9 to 0. Sullivan is safe as conservatives are big proponents of free speech often. Scalia was a vote for the flag burning case for example.

you forgot these.I added them for you.
Stay healthy RBG