For most people, a nominee's "judicial philosophy" is some vague indecipherable something that

[Atticus]

Senators say is important---and that's it; that is the extent of their concern about it. They may favor a nominee who agrees with them about guns, gays and abortions, but they really have no understanding of terms like "living Constitution" or "strict constructionism".

And, some of the Senators who are furrowing their brows and solemnly announcing that they are "studying Judge Jackson's judicial philosophy" also have no grasp of the concept and would not recognize a strict constructionist if one bit them on the ass.

Such incompetents know that they dare not say they won't vote to approve because "she's a woman" or "she's black" or "she does not worship Trump". So, they avoid stating how they will vote and deflect with "I am carefully examining her judicial philosophy" right up until they vote NO" because she's a black woman who doesn't worship Trump.

[spooky3]

1. I think they'd be perfectly happy with a black woman

Who hated Trump as long as they could count on her to oppose abortion, support deregulation, undermine worker rights, etc. it’s just that that combination is very rare to non-existent.

They obviously are sexist, racist, etc., but the real driver of this vote is whether the nominee will be a good little puppet.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I don't see how much more detailed a Judicial Philosophy should be than

either an Originalist (taking the language literally without interpretation) or Loose Interpretation.

https://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/the-judiciary/section4/#:~:text=The%20main%20types%20of%20contrasting,enact%20social%20and%20political%20change.

In our Legal Orientation at law school, Justice Learned Hand proposed interpretation of the law according to the current/modern social mores, the development of science and technology, and respect for history. IOW, keeping documents and precedent built on experience and common sense as well as verbiage.

What I see with hearings for the USSC is either literal versus literal/figurative interpretation. The former has constraints on how this country should be run by government and by each other. The latter is flexible.