A few thoughts to wrap things up (after my introductory post and my posts on pro-life activist Andy Schlafly’s ill-founded and bizarre attacks on Trump Supreme Court candidates Steven Colloton, Joan Larsen, Diane Sykes, Neil Gorsuch, Raymond Kethledge, and Allison Eid):

1. All other things being equal, I wish that every Supreme Court nominee had a clear record of believing that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned. But so far as I’m aware, we’ve never had a Supreme Court nominee with such a record. (Antonin Scalia had criticized Roe, but I’m not aware that he had publicly called for it to be overturned.)

That’s probably because it’s never the case that all other things are equal. More precisely, the confirmation process is an intensely political process, and, for better or worse, a clear record on hot-button issues is sometimes not conducive to being confirmed.

2. It would be one thing for Schlafly to identify and applaud those Supreme Court candidates who in his judgment have been “publicly pro-life.” It’s quite another thing for him to launch baseless attacks on those who don’t meet his standard.

Schlafly’s real objection, it seems, is that the six candidates he criticizes haven’t, in his judgment, clearly proclaimed their intention to overrule Roe. If that is his objection, why not just say so?

3. I long ago made the liberating decision not to live my life in order to be confirmable. At the same time, I very much respect those who have chosen a different path and who aim to be confirmable as judges and justices so that they can use those positions to advance a sound understanding of the Constitution and of our laws generally.

Yes, there is always the danger that people who seek to be confirmable might acquire a habit of trimming their sails too much. But it would be foolish to assume that they have acquired that habit.

4. One of the most important parts of the judicial-selection process is assessing character. That’s not something that can easily be done from afar.

5. Unless they are involved in the actual decisionmaking, I think that it is a foolish game for folks who favor Strong Candidate A over Strong Candidate B to spend their time trashing Candidate B. For all they know, their efforts may end up helping Unacceptable Candidate C get nominated.