"They want someone on the court who will not only vote what they consider to be the right way, but who can articulate their arguments in written opinions."
Not this conservative. What I want in a nominee is a conservative intellectual force that leads the court (and the legal system) to a more sane understanding of the proper role of the courts in our society. As I've said before on other threads, I'd rather have a brilliant jurist who gives me 70% of the votes I want than a mediocrity who votes "correctly" all the time. The White House's only argument the past few weeks has been that Miers would vote correctly (and they offered no evidence to support that contention). I feel fairly confident that the political commentators who led the charge against Harriet feel the same way.
Your statement: "What I want in a nominee is a conservative intellectual force that leads the court (and the legal system) to a more sane understanding of the proper role of the courts in our society."
They mean the same thing.
You went on to say: "As I've said before on other threads, I'd rather have a brilliant jurist who gives me 70% of the votes I want than a mediocrity who votes "correctly" all the time."
Although I have to take your word for your own position, I guarantee you that the first time some brilliant jurist casts one of those 30% votes, the caterwauling from the uber right would be just as loud as it has been these last few weeks.