Don't hold your breath. O'Connor was one of the five who dishonored the court with Bush v. Gore. She wasn't as bullish about Roe v. Wade as Scalia would have liked and she was a moderate conservative judge but when the moment came she swung an election on the party line.
As for Roberts, he's someone who has a sense of history and doesn't want a Dred Scott situation where the SCOTUS put out a ruling so absurd that the wrath of the public sends a POTUS to the WH who is going to make the SCOTUS his little b-word which is what happened with Taney and Lincoln. So Roberts would occassionally make a concession of sort. Now of course with a 6-3 Conservative judge, Roberts occassionally voting alongside the Liberals means that close rulings of 5-4 does not reflexively have an air of partisanship.
Ginsburg and Kagan have ruled sometimes alongside the conservative majority and have a spotty record on criminal justice among other things.Interesting that though that switch only happens once in awhile, it always indicates a shift from right to left, never from left to right. I mean, has there ever been a Supreme Court Justice appointed by a liberal leaning President who turned out to rule from a more conservative perspective?
https://www.thenation.com/article/po...cotus-dissent/
But yeah, on the big issues, they have never entirely swung to the right on a consistent stretch. The same by the way is true of John Roberts, he's been consistently a conservative with occassional sops. The last Judge appointed by a Republican who turned liberal was David Souter but in general the Federalist Society and other ghoulish organizations have learned from that and that's why the newer Republican SCOTUS tend to be so inexperienced and party hacks in the main. Sandra Day O'Connor, backstabber of the people's will that she was, was at least a trained legal professional with experience and stuff. That's not the case with the new one, not with Clarence Thomas either (quite apart from him being what Anita Hill accused him of being).