I've got to respectfully disagree, I think. There are a few people who have consistently shown they're interested in merely interpreting the law, not making the law. They're good, solid conservatives, and one of those people deserves this promotion.
Give me an example.
Since none of them are currently on the S.Ct., they must follow the S.Ct's idiot decisions. So I don't know how you would distinguish a lower court judge who disagrees with those decisions from one who doesn't.
Certainly, they don't write opinions which criticize S.Ct. decisions.
Usually, the assessment that they are conservatives is made in reliance on non-judicial statements. But statements that they make outside of the context of a judicial decision really don't tell you too much about how they are going to rule in a legal case.
I don't want someone that will interpret the law. I want someone that will read it. Interpretation of the law is making law.