High ground on the High Court?

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement yesterday. Recapping her career would be kind of wordy, so I will just thank her for her 24 years of service to the American people.
But, of course, Democrats and Republicans are already bracing for a confirmation battle over Pres. G. W. Bush's appointment.
Democrats are asking for a moderate justice, the GOP is expecting a conservative justice, and Bush is being appropriately vague about his intentions.
In a Voice of America report, Bush was quoted: "I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review, potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and the laws of our country."
O'Connor may have been a Republican, but changes in the country's political climate, as well as a shift to the right on the Supreme Court has given led many to think of O'Connor as a moderate.
O'Connor has a history of being the swing vote on many issues, and her record indicates she has sided with business, and several lobbies are poised to work for a favorable appointment.
Here's my two cents. The judicial branch of our government was designed to be the law-enforcement branch, and was not given the law-making powers of the legislative branch or the power to carry out policy like the executive branch.
Over the course of the last 200 years -- specifically the last 75 years -- the Supreme Court has positioned itself as a law-making body through interpretation of law. By limiting or expanding the scope of legislation, Supreme Court justices, in effect, have been able to make law.
Through famous cases like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education, the Court has potentially changed the meaning of laws and their application in certain cases.
Senators may argue over whether a conservative, moderate or liberal justice is an appropriate replacement for O'Connor, but they are arguing because they are perpetuating the law-making power the Supreme Court has created for itself against the principles spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
The appropriate replacement is a justice who will honestly and faithfully interpret the laws as written, not as presented by lawyers with agendas and clients to serve.