I wasn't attempting to buttress the original point and my question was NOT rhetorical, I am curious as to whether you have any evidence to indicate she is not an originalist but rather a believer in a living breathing constitution.
I do not believe there is enough evidence either way to suggest a conclusion as to whether she is or not.
There is slight evidence based on the recommendation of the President, active participation in a Biblical Faith, a few statements about gun rights and pro-life positions that she will not be a Souter or an O'Connor by intention. Meaning, I am willing to grant the possibility she may be a "yes" vote on the Thomas and Scalia aisle in some known instances. But granting that possibility largely on Faith in this President, and I will give him that limb, Conservative Christians are not in agreement on all issues.
What about less contentious constitutional issues to the public a large? Remove the 2A and R v. W from consideration. Remove possibly to spare argument gay marriage or assisted suicide. Even give the benefit of the doubt on Kelo.
I know next to nothing about her approach to law. My consideration is not a "yes" vote on the hot issues of the day, nor is her purpose to look over the shoulder of Scalia and Thomas to render a verdict. I need insight into her understanding of the Constitution, the law, the Framers and so on to render a verdict on whether she is a originalist, Constitutionist or Strict Constructionist.
-The three are not the same, though they are used as shorthand to denote interpretation of the Constitution.
To have security the finer points of the law we'll never discuss will be well handled. These Justices set precedent at will, absolutely, but it is harder to justify poor precedent if the reasoning for made prior judgments is sound in law. To date, no one can defend R V W legally and that has hurt the R.v.W supporters. Is Miers up to being not only able to vote appropriately, but pen judgments that even the most activist of Liberals would have difficulty arguing against? We don't know. Her record suggests she is not incompetant, but it does not suggest she can rise to the challenges I cite either which is why i do not feel she was most qualified for this position and am disappointed.
Certainly, the possibility she is competant to this high standard is a possibility even if, imo, her record doesn't show it. But if so, it is in her corner to convince at her hearing or the administration to provide samplings of detailed writings that can calm on this score.
And, as another note, Thomas and Scalia often rule together but they do not approach the Constitution in the same way.