So did I, but only because "other" was too lame to record a preference for Justice Scalia. Notwithstanding that he's 10 years older than Justice Thomas, we still don't know anything about life expectancy down the road, and you really don't want to shoot yourself in the foot being too cute about court politics. You just pick the guy who seems the ablest strict-constructionist / originalist (now we need to continue that conversation about the alleged difference between those two labels) and nominate him, straight up, hoping and trusting that another good justice will be ready next time the CJ's seat comes open.
That's all I'm saying. You hose yourself -- the Republicans have done this at least three times that I know of, going back to Nixon's appointees -- playing games and nominating "young and vigorous" (i.e., "I want at least 40 years outta this guy") persons who are not on the Court to CJ, versus going with a known quantity for CJ.
Elevate someone like Estrada or Gonzales or Brown, and he could turn into the next Souter -- and then you're screwed, doubly so, because you passed up two rock-solid men already on the Court to nominate the less-known quantity!