Supreme Court Speculation Centers on Judge Edith "Joy" Clement -- A Problematic Nomination for Conservatives?

From Southern Appeal:

Now this presents quite a problem for conservatives, doesn't it? From WaPo:

"Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court 'has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion' and that 'the law is settled in that regard'."

Me [Justin at Southern Appeal]: If abortion is truly the key issue surrounding the madness, I would think that this doesn't bode well for pro-lifers. What say the Catholic Federalists around here?

(emphasis added)

And then there's this from RedState.org:

1. It is Joy [Clement].
2. WH will announce quickly, probably tomorrow.
2. Major players are on board.
4. Senate Dems are okay.
5. Specter is pleased. His staff is gearing up tonight.
6. Expect Dem groups to go nuts.
7. A handful of Dem Senators will play "mean" to pacify base. Bark will be worse than bite.
8. Joy is like O'Connor on business issues and we are comfortable that she is with us on upcoming life cases.

(emphasis added)

RedState.org then follows up with this:

No one knows how Clement would vote on the ultimate issue -- is abortion a medical procedure subject to state regulation or a constitutional right. I am told that, with the pressing issues currently headed to the court, i.e. partial birth abortion, parental notification, 24 hour waiting periods, the Solomon Amendment, etc. -- conservatives do not need to worry about Clement, they need to worry about Justice Kennedy and whether he will continue heading left.

I have been told by multiple parties that, though we know little about Judge Clement's leanings on social issues, we should make no mistake that her family background is conservative and that her husband is a "loyal" conservative. Also, I've gotten a few emails and phone calls from a few particular people who would know who all say that we should trust the President on this pick. I also know that lawyers in my home state of Louisiana like Clement and do think she is conservative.

We don't know much else about Edith Clement. What we do know means the President has attempted to address Democratic concerns about replacing O'Connor with someone like O'Connor. We also know that Clement's background is more conservative than O'Connor. We also know that there is a political calculus on having a photogenic female judge without any harsh statements on file, the record of an enigma, and the family pedigree of a rock solid conservative pass through the Senate without the expenditure of an extrordinary amount of political capital.

My Comments:
I'm not sure what to think. My gut instincts tell me that it is a bad idea to try to go with a stealth candidate (e.g., David Souter) when there are many "known-quantity" originalists out there for the President to choose from. And with a 55-seat majority, surely one of those "known-quantity" originalists could get confirmed. It also bothers me that the President has chosen to address the "concerns" raised by Democrats (the minority party - you know, the ones who LOST the last election) of replacing O'Connor with "someone like O'Connor".

I suppose this is one where we'll just have to wait and see, but I don't like having to do that one bit. I'm just hoping that I and other like-minded conservatives won't wake up feeling dirty when it's all over (the problem is that if Clement turns out to be a regrettable nomination, it won't be "over" for many, many years -- it'll be a decades-long screwing of the conservatives that put the President in office).