Your vanity post is voided by the logical fallacy of begging the question. That question is: Will Miers be a strict constructionist on the Court?
The correct answer is: Nobody knows.
As for CJ Roberts, his questioning during the first oral arguments he presided over were troubling. Now, he might have been playing devil's advocate to elicit reasoned responses in support of his position, but if you take his questioning at face value, he is favorable to sweeping federal government takeover of certain States Rights (although this particular issue is a painful one to give to Oregon, the right to kill terminally ill who want to die.) Taking over States Rights is hardly a strict constructionalist viewpoint. Time will tell, when the ruling on that case is released.
But for now, it's troubling.
I daresay that even your rhetorical question voids itself. We all talk about 'originalist' and 'strict constructionist'. But even that varies by individual definition. You are right, none of us are fortune tellers, so anyone claiming 'to know' the future is at best making an informed guess, and those able to make the best guess are those who know the person best, not those making anecdotal observations.
States rights is very much an originalist school of thought, I agree, it is the basis upon which this republic was formed. The Oregon case exceeds the states rights issue and does extend to individual rights, the basis for the Bill of Rights. Does someone have the right to decide to take their own life ? I do not think very many would advocate someone doing so as a choice. Once that choice is made, should they have a right to seek assistance to make it less painful ? And what form, if any, can that assistance take ? Once you find those answers, you then cross into the realm of the states' right to determine what form that assistance can take. I understand the right to life reasoning with abortion, as the unborn have no say, it makes sense. A right to die is a much more troubling and complex moral problem, if only for the tendency for it to get extended to euthanasia. The Oregon case also does a slight switch in that the fed is making the argument, not from states rights or individual rights, but from a drug enforcement and useage aspect, which is the purview of the federal government.