When you read the Chief Justice's decisions on "liberal" issues based on stare decisis, you will understand that the Court moves slowly, not wham-bam, thank-you, ma'am.
Get the right jurisprudence on the Court, and in time the Court will straighten itself out. Focus on nominees who will say in advance they will reverse a given Court decision, and you are on a fool's errand. Even if such Justices were confirmed, they would be disqualified from sitting in the very cases you are most concerned about.
Sometimes at the pool table you have to use a two- or three-rail shot. Same applies to Supreme Court jurisprudence.
John / Billybob
You miss my point. Even if Bush nominated another Judge bork, only 30 years younger, and did that three times in a row, the resulting Court would not find all the bad decisions of the Court in the last 50 years, unconstitutional on the spot.
True, in fact I made that point lask week. Any new court could only rule on cases wroking through the system to its level and a new law suit would have to be started to change anything.