I have been saying on these threads for the past few days that for all the trouble we will have to go through regardless, we ought to have more assurance about what we are actually fighting for. All we have right now, as far as I can determine, is a guy who is very bright and has built a solid resume but, as you said, no real track record to give us insight into a philosophy you can hang your hat on.
Yes, that is my only worry. While I like and admire President Bush, for a nomination of this magnitude, I'd have been much more comfortable with someone about whom there was little doubt where he stood with regard to judicial philosophy. I have also been very frank in that I don't want a conservative judge because I dislike judicial activism, whether from the left or from the right. I want an originalist, one who will interpret the document as written and as understood at the time of its adoption. By happy coincidence, the vast majority of conservative positions agree with originalist interpretations. If they aren't, however, then we need to walk the talk and persuade our fellow citizens to passing laws to reflect any conservative beliefs we value that are not reflected in the Constitution, as Justice Scalia repeatedly scolds the liberals to do.