Truth is a paper trail tells you nothing, and so does any investigation done with no paper trail. The Stevens Precendent destroys all confidence one might have in anyone.
And that does mean Anyone.
A strict constructionist could become an activist. An activist could become a strict constructionist.
Is it a crap shoot?
Yes. All you can do is try to adjust the odds and you can adjust those by not very much. Is a 20 year personal relationship an inferior way to adjust those than a paper trail? The precedents say no. Few if any nominations based on personal knowledge of an individual have been made so we don't know if they work. We have many nominations made from paper trail and we know that many of those do not work.
Given a technique that you know has failures vs a technique that you do not know has failures, clearly the 2nd technique is superior.
What exactly are you referring to here? According to the biography at Oyez.org:
"Nominated by Republican President Gerald Ford in the wake of the Watergate scandal to help re-establish public confidence in government, Stevens was widely viewed as a moderate, concerned more with the details of a given case than a broad and predictable judicial philosophy."
No disrespect, but your elaborate and well articulated argument boils down to two words: "Trust Bush." Trust him even if he acts on his own, appoints someone close to him, without consulting the people to whom this appointment has meant so much for not just years, but DECADES. In fact, especially trust Bush in that case. I can't go along.