Calm down, you don't have the right or privilege to advise and consent. I suspect that you would only be satisfied with an a conservative activist judge.
With the way this court has moved recently I wouldn't mind a conservative movement originalist like a Bork.
Five Borks would definately bring back originalism back to the court.
Just because you are a conservative, an originalist, and against bad precedent that isn't in the constitution doesn't mean you are an activist.
It just means you are interpreting the constitution.
What ticks me off with O'Connor she didn't rely on the constitution all the time she would base a lot of her beleifs on how society is affected.
And even worse with Kennedy who would base a lot of his beleifs in international law. There is no place in the constitution for that.
We need justices that will strictly follow and interpret the constitution.
I like Scalia and he voted for burning the flag that it was constitutional I don't agree with that but Scalia was just interpreting the constitution as he sees it. But Scalia is also for overturning Roe v Wade because there is nothing in the constitution that gives you that right.