"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
Were Johnson to be elected (which obviously isn't going to happen, but since you're voting for him is a reasonable way of looking at it), more originalists would pack the court, enough perhaps to overturn some of these decisions. Perhaps even over his own policy preferences, if I'm reading his Wikipedia page correctly. But that's why judicial theory matters. Romney posses a similar preference for justices, and they're both, for my money, on the wrong side of it.
Romney, as usual, is vague on this issue, but here's what his Web site says: "There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated. At other points, the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history." And also, "The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles."
The same exact judges? Probably not. But it's the same judicial philosophy: originalism/textualism. Neither contain an express right to privacy. Only a living constitutionalist (ie liberal) judge believes in such "emanations".
GOVERNOR GARY JOHNSON TOPS OBAMA, PAUL ON ACLU CONSTITUTIONAL REPORT CARD
I think that's what you're sort of ignoring here, the implications of having a Supreme Court full of Constitutional originalists of the kind Johnson says he would nominate. Here's the country's most prominent originalist on the subject:
Originalism is not compatible with a generalized belief in the right to privacy. Now, they're more likely to broadly define the right to bear arms, which is something I agree with. But privacy to me is the bigger issue. If that wall is breached, then all of your worst bogey men might truly become reality.
Hasn't that wall already been breached with things like the patriot act, warrantless searches, TSA and the drug war? You say "liberals" believe in privacy but yet Obama is a living and prime example of that not being the case. Obama/Bush/Romney don't give 2 sh!ts about our privacy and have no problem trappling on it. For me I would rather take my chances on civil liberties and privacy with a candidate that actually values them and doesn't support policies and laws that infringe on those rights. Fact is Obama has proven to be just as bad as Bush or even worse like the ACLU has stated.
The ACLU on Obama and core liberties
It's a key issue with libertarianism generally, in my view. Gary Johnson can feel very strongly on a personal level about these issues, but his philosophy on government would by it's very nature prevent him from imposing himself on the system and his judicial philosophy would ensure that the right to privacy didn't exist in the Supreme Court. Perhaps he would be dismayed by the results, but he's a small government guy. What's he going to do about it? You can only "protect" civil liberties as President if you have an expansive enough view of the role of the federal government to regulate those areas.
It reminds me of the situation James Buchanan faced in the 1850s. He felt succession was deeply wrong, yet he decided he had no legal standing to prevent it. As a result, he did nothing, with very nearly calamitous results.