Yep. That is the alternative. I suppose he didn't promise strict constuctionsists either, since that's what conservatives are looking for and Scalia and THomas happen to be benchmarks to disambiguate "strict constructionist."
Posted on October 15th, 2005 at 8:23 pm. About 'A Civil “Civil War”'.
And then (arguably going to the right of “Anthony” (sic) Scalia who thinks the term is too ’strict’) the famous interaction in 2004 which Professor Bainbridge provides good analysis of at http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/10/hewitt_and_mirg.html
“GOV BUSH: The most primary issue–the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?
MR. RUSSERT: Will your judges and judge appointments to the Supreme Court be similar to Scalia in their temperament and judicial outlook?
GOV. BUSH: Well, I don’t think you’re going to find many people to be actually similar to him. He’s an unusual man. He’s an intellect. The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down. He’s witty, he’s interesting, he’s firm. There’s a lot of reasons why I like Judge Scalia. And I like a lot of the other judges as well. I mean, it’s kind of a harsh question to ask because it now pits me–some of whom are friends of mine. I mean, it’s–and so, in all due respect, Judge Thomas.”
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1611