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.
You seem to be arguing that improving the vetting process means knowing even less about the judicial philosophy of the candidate -- president has given us any facts. But if this is the new test you like, so be it.
The pressure of being an openly conservative justice on SCOTUS has to be tremendous. It would be really difficult to figure out who has that kind of fortitude in advance.
A little anal, no? He was sworn in 1988, and Casey came down in 1992 -- ok, 4 years. With all due respect, your argument is illogical. For instance, Scalia was also interviewed, and he turned out to be very solid. You are joining a small chorus defending emotion over logic. That's ok, but that's what it is. My book has example after example of cronies picked by presidents who were terrible.