But, given that my jurisprudential sense lies closely to that of Randy Barnett's (though I'm not quite as radically libertarian in my constitutional interpretation as he is), I'm not really that satisfied by any nominee.

That meshes with the last line in your post. I guess I was addressing more directly implications I saw in Traina's quotes.

I think that "left" and "right" don't have a lot of meaning when it comes to the Supreme Court. For example, from a jurisprudential standpoint, Alito's general theory of deference to the executive is pretty radical.

But, given that my jurisprudential sense lies closely to that of Randy Barnett's (though I'm not quite as radically libertarian in my constitutional interpretation as he is), I'm not really that satisfied by any nominee.

He also points out that, as kind of a nature of the beast, you can’t always predict what kind of Justice a nominee will turn into:

Granted that it's not an exact science, Alex, but I suspect there's something of a trend one might follow along these lines:

It's far more likely for a nominee of a Democrat to turn into a Ruth Bader Ginsberg, than for the nominee of a Rebliblican to turn into an Antonin Scalia.

Indeed, it's far more likely for the nominee of a Republican of late to turn into a David Souter, than into a Scalia.

As a result, I suggest at this stage, that no matter who gets elected President this cycle, chances are the court will tilt left of where it is.

And for the record, I do not regard that as a good thing.