Results oriented jurisprudence is EXACTLY what is wrong with the courts today. Conservatives have been fighting the notion that little things like the constituion and the framer's intent are secondary to "getting things right" (e.g. the court's finding an essential need for diversity in the University of Michigan case).
Now we're supposed to accept a mediocre nominee because she'll "vote correctly"?
My definition of "vote correctly" is voting as a strict constructionist. Why is your 'definition' different?