If ACB is confirmed would this be an accurate ranking of the justices from left to right

[Hindsight was 2020]

It is hard to say.  I believe she is truly a Strict Constructionist and a non-activist Judge.  I do not believe she will vote to nullify much legislation, even liberal legislation, although she will have a conservative record.

One of the most ridiculous statements are the statements as to how appointing Barrett is "a blow to our democracy".  NOT appointing Barrett and allowing Biden to appoint an activist Justice to nullify all sorts of conservative legislation and legislate by Judicial Fiat is the real threat to "democracy". 

Abortion, SSM, unlimited campaign cash, are NOT the products of "democracy"; they are the products of legislating from the bench.  The Left is OK with this because legislatures won't pass much of their agendas in this regard.  Whether these things are good or bad, they are not the law of the land due to "democracy".  To be fair, the same is true about the integration of public schools, and I certainly agree that the integration of public schools and public accommodations wound NOT have come about without the intervention of an activist Court.  But this isn't about "democracy".  Amy Coney Barrett is more about "democracy" than RBG, who was far more about Judicial Activism. 

Yeah because nothing says “non-activists” then a judge your hoping makes a bunch of right wing rulings on liberal laws that are too popular to get rid of through Congress (the campaign cash withstanding) 🙄

[Badger]

Let's make sure not to conflate originalism with textualism. They are not the same.

Yup the  best example is Bostock. By using Originalism that Thomas used in that case, the original makers of this law had no desire to protect gay or transgenders as a protected class. However by textualism there was a strong case to protect these groups due to the word sex.

Gay and transgender aren't nouns, but this is an excellent point.

Is Kagan really to the right of Breyer?

Without breaking it down issue-by-issue , they are ideologically similar, generally left of center.

[lfromnj]

Let's make sure not to conflate originalism with textualism. They are not the same.

Yup the  best example is Bostock. By using Originalism that Thomas used in that case, the original makers of this law had no desire to protect gay or transgenders as a protected class. However by textualism there was a strong case to protect these groups due to the word sex.

Precisely.

Gorsuch is an originalist on the constitution and a textualist on statutes.

That textualism is evident in his Bostock ruling (which like it or not, had a sound textualist basis), and his rulings on Native law.

Weirdly enough Gorsuch is actually a bit of the originalist type with Native treaties. IIRC he used the native language when they signed the treaty to get the meaning of the treaty for a case in Washington.

[KaiserDave]

Let's make sure not to conflate originalism with textualism. They are not the same.

Yup the  best example is Bostock. By using Originalism that Thomas used in that case, the original makers of this law had no desire to protect gay or transgenders as a protected class. However by textualism there was a strong case to protect these groups due to the word sex.

Precisely.

Gorsuch is an originalist on the constitution and a textualist on statutes.

That textualism is evident in his Bostock ruling (which like it or not, had a sound textualist basis), and his rulings on Native law.

Weirdly enough Gorsuch is actually a bit of the originalist type with Native treaties. IIRC he used the native language when they signed the treaty to get the meaning of the treaty for a case in Washington.

Arguably that's a textualist position.

From a certain point of view. He's just using a more accurate text.