Wrong. He had a solid record, he was known by the attorney general. He changed on the Court about 5 years in. The point being that even under the best of circumstances it is difficult to be sure. You try to limit the vulnerability. So, if the point is that vetting isn't perfect, that's obvioius. But that's a defense of your position.
He didn't last 5 years, he stabbed us in the back in Casey. You could not have forseen Kennedy as an apostate Catholic and a penumbrist. None of you knew him the way Bush knows Harriet Miers, the AG notwithstanding.
The point being that even under the best of circumstances it is difficult to be sure. You try to limit the vulnerability. So, if the point is that vetting isn't perfect, that's obvioius. But that's a defense of your position.
Vetting can never be perfect but it can be much more reliable when the guy doing the appointing has had a very close relationship with the appointee over many years.
A personality change of major scope can occur to anyone no matter how finely vetted. Medical events such as strokes, major surgeries, have at times resulted in such changes. Why bang up on Bush for what happened with Judge Kennedy? It was not simething you and the other selectors and vetters can predict with confidence. President Bush used HIS own sense -- which is highly developed, as circumstances show -- to pick a candidate, THE candidate with whom HE has the most assurance will keep to the strict constructionist philosophy he promised.
How old is Justice Stevens? How many others are close to or over 75 to 80?