Your premise is wrong. It's not that conservatives are upset and "whining" about all the time and effort spent to finally get some conservative justices on the Supreme Court and Bush not nominating who we wanted. It is about Bush promising to nominate justices "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" and then Bush failing to keep that promise and instead nominating an unqualified political crony. This nomination is indefensible and it is truly disheartening to see so many so-called conservatives defending it.
Since you are clearly hung-up on the phrase "in the mold of Scalia & Thomas" why don't you define what that means for us?
But your premise hasn't even got a basis in reality or fact. For it to, she would have to have been a liberal, and even when she was a democrat decades ago she wasn't a liberal. The only way your premise is at all factual is a few years from now, IF she has an established pattern of adjudicating as a liberal or moderate, in direct contravention of conservative constructionist ideals. The evidence about her personally and professionally points to the exact opposite. If she was good enough to pick Luddig, and Jones, and Owens, and Brown and ALL the others you think should have had the nominiation, then why isn't she good enough to have it herself when she was the main person picking conservative Judges for Bush to appoint? Please expalin that. She was concerned that Roberts wasn't even conservative enough so that means she's right of Roberts, and that now somehow isn't conservative enough? He was only a Judge two years before he was confirmed. Exactly how much experience do you figure he had in those two years? And Thomas and Scalia didn't have a mountain of judicial experience before being nominated. I mean come on. This is just plain silly.
The precise and exact issue.