Agreed. All we have at the U Mich site are the decisions. A lot of this is awfully arcane stuff, however, and not constitutional issues that will excite most of us.
I was not selective in what I looked at, however. Just randomly picked stuff - except for the Disney case which you pointed out.
The point here is to get a sense of the quality of her mind in legal argument and analysis, not her Constitutional views. The potentially telling brief against her, is that she is a mental mediocrity, not that her views are unknown. Doing that on procedural federal law issues as opposed to Constitutional issues, serves just fine for that purpose. It will also give us some sense as to whether she will be a quick study or not in picking up the Constitutional arcana in the next month.