Who knows? According to this posting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4392544.stm he is conservative but fair minded, which in my book is preferable to a pliable functionary without any political philosophy.
Looking at this from a broader perspective, the liberal-democratic façade of the US society has been attained largely by legalistic maneuvers, such as law suits, judicial nominations, and judicial decisions. It worked for a while, but it has not changed the Babbitt-like, petite bourgeois nature of the US social institutions and population which while not having any political philosophy of its own, is rather receptive for conservative self-righteousness, bigotry, and scapegoat bashing.
The Kennedy-era social reforming from above: by judicial decisions, federal programs, and "liberal elite" appointments - was an exception rather than the norm, adopted in response to challenges of the Cold War and the need show a "human face" of the US "babbittry" to the world. Such reforms, while progressive, were not exactly 'democratic' i.e. representative of the mainstream mindsets and values. The Republican blitz and the conservative appointments are simply return to "business as usual" which are more representative of the nature and values of the mainstream majority (Ruy Teixeira notwithstanding).
If this analysis is correct, the SC nominations resemble the "nomenklatura" system of the Soviet era - which draws appointees from a rather narrow pool of trusted functionaries who are appointed and "recycled" as it is politically expedient at the moment. Specific faces behind those appointments do not really matter, what matters is the power of the Republican party and its business backers to carry out policies they desire.
Wojtek