What is the chance that we'll get a couple strict constitutionalists?
[The following is all strictly personal opinion, with no true factual basis in support, especially the math.]
Zero. Okay, almost zero. With Judge O'Scannlain's (who wrote the original three judge panel opinion in Peruta/Richards/Baker) move to "senior" status, the only "strict constitutionalist" remaining on the Ninth is Judge Kozinski.
Not surprisingly, the judicial opinions of the various judges align remarkably well with the political positions of the presidents who appointed them, and here is the breakdown:
Carter 1
Reagan 1 (judge Kozinski)
Clinton 10
GW Bush 6
Obama 7
By appointment alone, that makes it 18-7 for the "progressive" side. If you look at the reality of several of the Bush appointees, it makes more like 20-5 or 21-4.
Assuming that any judge will rule in the manner consistent with the political views of the president who appointed him, the probability of 2 of the three judges being drawn for the panel being appointed by Republican presidents is 1 in 6.67. I'll qualify that by saying that it's been so long since i learned the math of odds and probabilities that that answer could be the same as "made it up". However, I think that even just a "commonsense" look at the numbers of judges and who appointed them (look at the Peruta en banc panel makeup) will lead one to conclude that the draw of the original Peruta three judge panel was a highly improbable "fluke", and that the chances of that happening again, in written words rather than a mathematical formulation, would be "Ain't gonna happen".