Conservative judges will move the nation back to a literal interpretation of the Constitution mainly through increments, although some cases may create opportunities to make new precedents. No court is ever going to declare Social security unconstitutional, but the courts may start to restrain the federal government from interfering with state prerogratives and may start to more narrowly define interstate commerce. There is no binding precedent for the court to allow Congress to regulate and legislate on everything, so there's still plenty of room for a conservative court to limit the powers of the federal government. As far as what the Religious Right wants, forget it. The only real battlegrounds left are outside their agenda, although favorable rulings on states' rights could give the most of what they really want. The 2nd amendment is still up in the air, as is the commerce clause. There's also the constitutionality of certain kinds of campaign finance reform. The ruling on McCain-Feingold was too narrow, recent, and vague to be binding precedent. To me, those are the really important issues. I want a strict constructionist court that will limit the power and reach of the federal government and I think we're slowly moving towards that. If we can get a good replacement for Stevens, we'll be close to where we need to be. Breyer and Ginsburg are an atrocity that can't leave the court soon enough in my opinion. I've rarely heard the word "Constitution" pass their lips except to denigrate the literalist approach. Sounds to me like they considered their oath to be meaningless.