Does judicial philosophy matter?

A judges job is render a decision based on their interpretation of the constitution. The Supreme Court is the final stop in the judicial process. This means that judges are not lawyers in the sense that they are not advocating for a position on any given issue. One of the challenges that the court has is that the Constitution is intentionally vague when it comes to certain issues. Constitutions are by design not specific for the most part because it creates a general border. Laws are there to fill in the gaps. This is when case law becomes very important. Basically this where the lower courts have ruled. However sometimes the lower courts give conflicting rulings so it puts the Supreme Court in a bind. I believe that for the most part judicial philosophy does not matter when it comes to nominees. The most important part of a job of a justice is to interpret the constitution to the best of their ability with the case that is before them. There is a life time appointment to the federal judiciary so there is no way of determining whether or not a nominee will stay with that philosophy. Many presidents have been dissappointed with the way their nominee turned out. Remember, unlike the Congress and the President, Justices are not advocates for any cause or organization. They are the one branch of government that is non-partisan.