Why do you assume Trump's SCOTUS nominees will satisfy you?
Other than Scalia and Thomas, conservatives have been disappointed with pretty much every justice Republicans have nominated in recent years - O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Roberts...
And what is "Republican friendly legislation?" The Republican Party doesn't vote for legislation - it only votes against it.
I would think conservatives are happy with Alito. Other than the Obamacare decision, I have trouble seeing why conservatives would be bent out of shape about Roberts. And Kennedy ALWAYS comes down on the "Republican side" of "political questions" (something the Court once shied away from). Citizens United. Bush v. Gore. Obamacare. When it's a GOP Flagship issue, Kennedy is right there; it's only on SOCIAL issues that Kennedy is "moderate" or "liberal".
Ginsburg's comments on Trump last week only confirmed that the SCOTUS Justices are just as political as Congress now, and just as partisan, and this is not good. This is a direct result of the politicization of the Judicial Nomination process, a gift to America from Richard Nixon that has kept on giving and giving. The idea that the Supreme Court would be a deciding factor in anyone's decision as to how to vote for President is a relatively new phenomenon in our politics.
The Republican grassroots don't care about decisions on "political questions." They care about things like abortion, SSM and Obamacare. That's why so many of them now hate Roberts - they'd prefer he have ruled their way regarding Obamacare and
Obergefell in exchange for voting with the liberals on everything else. Some cases are more important than others in that regard.
I cringed at Ginsburg's comments, but unfortunately, SCOTUS justices are people just like the rest of us. Clarence Thomas has admitted that he gets most of his news from talk radio and, of course, his wife is basically a political hack for conservative activist groups, so I'm sure the "pillow talk" they have at night makes a difference.
And ultimately, I blame the abortion rights people for bringing the
Roe case and turning the Supreme Court into something that "ordinary" people cared about. In terms of what they accomplished, I don't think it really mattered. Most states were passing laws making abortion more available. Without
Roe, you would probably have ended up with an equilibrium situation where most of the country had abortion with basically no restrictions, and the rest of the country (the South, Utah, perhaps a temperamentally conservative Catholic state like Rhode Island) had it in very limited circumstances. Abortion rights organizations could then have simply focused on providing funding for poor women who couldn't get an abortion where they lived to travel to a state where they could get one.
Instead, it's become an issue everywhere and is now such a "cultural signal" that you've got white Protestants, a group that never had any issue with birth control, aping the pre-Vatican II Catholic views on contraception simply so that they can differentiate themselves from those "baby-killing liberals."
Roe v. Wade is the only SCOTUS decision most people who can name a SCOTUS case can name. (It was the only one Sarah Palin could name in her dumpster fire Katie Couric interview that one time.)
