You are totally missing my point and misrepresenting my position. There is little or no proof that she has acting independently to uphold the ideas of the Republican Party or the Conservative movement in a legal setting.
What I might "hope" or "feel" is true about this irrelevant.
That would be true if it were YOUR choice. If it were YOUR choice, I would expect you to be very certain that your nominee to the Supreme Court believes in judging and not legislating.
Unless you have a real REASON to doubt that Bush has assured himself in the same way about this candidate, your criticism is uncalled for, worse, it is petty. Bush has vetted this person for almost two decades. She is eminently qualified (don't miss reading posts #38 and #36). If he has not chosen this nominee over all the others (with all the information at his disposal) with good cause, then I don't think we should have trusted him with the Presidency.
This smells to me like a choice made to ENSURE there were no mistakes. He has not let us down on judicial nominees in the past (and neither has Miers). There is NOTHING we know about this candidate to cause us to reasonably, seriously entertain doubts now.