you're getting way ahead of yourself. and probably overlooking anthony kennedy's swing position.
Kennedy voted against the majority in all of those cases. O'Connor was the fifth vote in each of them.
The fact that Kennedy voted against the majority in those cases does not mean that he would vote to overturn them if given a chance now. Justices do take precedent seriously, and while they are allowed to depart from it, voting against the original decision does not imply voting to overturn it. Also, being the pivotal voter on the court affects how one votes: instead of joining one of the camps he could design an inermediate opinion that fits his views best.
If Kennedy wrote opinions in those cases back then, there might be a clue of how he'd vote now. Given his personality, I would think he'd be likelier to try to write middle-of-the-way opinions of limited impact. He is also not averse to changing his views: remember, this is the guy who once went to write a 5:4 majority opinion overturning Roe, and emerged writing a 5:4 majority opinion upholding it.
