1)
Pence's nominees won't be worse than Trump's. In fact, I'd say Pence is more likely to stick to traditional, well-qualified candidates and not go off the rails with an ill-qualified alt-right yahoo, which is far more dangerous. Gorsuch is very conservative, for example, but he is a scholar with deep respect for our legal precedent and our system of government, and he's not going to go way off the rails. Some Bannon-esque nut without a deep versing in the law (assuming he was confirmed) might try. So, we are just not going to be worse off in that respect -- likely we are better off. And as I mentioned, Pence would be starting under a cloud, so he's going to be careful to choose someone very much in the traditional mold.
2)
Nominees for the Supreme Court are not EVER going to be hard to find -- not for Trump, not for anyone. Not only is it the highest job one can have in the law, but they serve for life, not at the pleasure of Trump, and don't work with him at all. This is not like taking an appointment in his cabinet or in the White House. Once you're in, you can blow him off entirely and you have zero obligation to do things he'd like. (Justices appointed by conservative presidents have ended up being liberal. Blackmun, of Roe v. Wade fame, was appointed by Nixon, for example.)
If Trump nominated me for Supreme Court justice, I'd take it. And I freaking detest Trump. (Whereas I wouldn't go near Session's job.) That should tell you something. Do not confuse Supreme Court positions with White House positions. The latter will indeed be difficult to fill, because the nominees know Trump will make their job impossible and make them look like assholes. The Supreme Court is another thing entirely.
3)
What the Senate will do for Pence's nominees won't be a jot different than what they do for Trump's. Republicans will still jump to confirm a justice they like, Democrats will still block one they don't. Also, if Trump goes down in flames, the Senate may look different in 2018, and almost certainly will in 2020.
4)
Justices can't just up and reverse Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges. First, a suitable case with a real person and a genuine constitutional question has to rise up through the court system and the supreme court has to take it. Second, the Supreme Court has to work with existing law, and it would have to reverse its own precedents. Believe it or not, this isn't something they like to do. Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges are settled law -- Roe has been for many decades now. In Supreme Court world, reversing the court's own past decrees that something is constitutional or unconstitutional is pretty radical stuff, which jurists who rise to that level tend to be very uninclined to do.
It's possible, IF a suitable case came before them, they'd abrade those rights a bit, as Planned Parenthood v Casey did with abortion. (Do I want that? No. But circle back to point one -- Pence's nominees will not be worse than Trump's, and will likely be better in terms of their understanding of their role and their qualifications.)
But reverse outright? Damn unlikely. Seriously. We'd need some very big changes in the country and a number more years to get there.
In short, if anything, on the Supreme Court front we are likely better off with Pence, particularly as he will be coming in under a cloud that will force him to be cautious.
ETA:
Here's a neat New York times article about the Supreme Court's ability/inclination to reverse its own decisions (written by a very fine legal scholar from my school; I knew him back in the day, though I haven't spoken to him in a while):
www.nytimes.com/2002/12/05/opinion/can-the-supreme-court-change-its-mind.htmlSo, can they reverse their decisions? Sure. But they're pretty reluctant to do so, and take a number of factors into consideration before they do.
Also worth noting, for both you liberals and conservatives out there. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LEGISLATING, WHETHER YOU LIKE THE RESULTS OR NOT! People tend to lose sight of that if they think the result will be one they like. But in the words of Gorsuch, sometimes a good judge with integrity is going to come down with decisions he doesn't like himself, because they are what the law compels. Contrary to what many seem to think, the remedy for social ills does not always lie with the judicial branch.
That's not to say that it doesn't matter who's on the bench -- of course it does. But people get slightly carried away sometimes worrying that a president they don't like is going to appoint a buttload of extremists to the bench who shred the constitution and change us overnight into a theocracy/communist state. IMO, this isn't likely when it comes to the supreme court unless things get one hell of a lot worse than they are even now, and it will take time and cooperation from more than one branch of government.
Worth noting that most people only pay attention to the really yuuuge supreme court cases, especially those that come out 5-4. But in fact, a lot of Supreme Court cases are unanimous and don't have a conservative/liberal divide.
www.law360.com/articles/808513/the-supreme-court-term-by-the-numbersAnyway. IMO a much bigger danger than the Supreme Court over the next three years (even if we assume Pence would be worse, and I submit that he would not) is an erratic, hair-trigger president with sweeping executive powers and an itchy trigger finger for the nuclear codes.
