I have a feeling that if GWB nominated Thomas Jefferson we'd still get a bunch of paranoid Republicans who are looking for betrayal at every corner to complain, and point to a personal letter containing the phrase "wall of separation" as their evidence why the guy is a bad choice and "not an originalist".
He didn't nominate Thomas Jefferson. He nominated a man about whom some FReepers are relying on the memberships of his wife and the number of his children to get clues about his judicial philosophy. There were better candidates available with whom we wouldn't be going into the next 30 years with our fingers crossed hoping that the second hand information about his political philosophy was in fact correct. We could, instead have been able to point to opinions issued from the bench and said "now, that decision is based on an originalist interpretation of the Constitution" or "that decision is based on liberal activism" or "that decision uses conservative opinions as its basis." As it stands now, we're reading tea leaves, hoping for good omens. That would be satisfactory for a nomination to be Attorney General, or National Security Advisor or the final Ambassador to the U.N. For a lifetime appointment to a position in which basic rights can be erased, I would have hoped for a higher criteria.