It'll probably be the one who hates women who gets it. Trump has already went pretty hard anti-abortion/anti-women so far.
I feel like this is the kinda nonsense that can only happen in a country as young as the USA. Interpreting documents like that without taking into context the differences of modern civilization is just straight up stupid.
The constitution does have an amendment process to allow changes as civilization evolves.
Scalia's argument was always that by reinterpreting the constitution to create new rights not found in the text, the court was acting outside the democratic process. He didn't oppose amending the constitution when necessary - it isn't holy writ.
Too be fair, many of the changes the court has pushed through as "constitutional" over the last decades would never have passed through the amendment process at the time they were made, since they were too controversial and unpopular when the decision was handed down (e.g. abortion polls have remained relatively static and there would never have been enough support to enact a constitutional amendment to guarantee either a right to abortion or the opposite)
Some of them may have happened democratically through congress or state legislatures if the courts had just waited a while longer though, whereas others (such as the temporary abolition of capital punishment that a later court overturned) have never reached consensus in American society.
