The frayed pretense that judges aren't chosen precisely on that basis

Judicial nominees are changing their approach to the 'Brown v Board' question at Senate hearings

They all have wide ranging and extensive opinions on these things.

Law students, legal scholars, lawyers, and sitting judges harbor detailed and numerous opinions as to what was rightly or wrongly decided.

That is how they form themselves into legal genera, Democrats or Republicans, soi-disant partisans of strict or broad construction, of historic understanding or answerability to contemporary social needs, of the black letter document or invisible but inherent whatnots and penumbras.

So why be so coy when everybody knows it is on exactly the basis of what they are pro or con that they are chosen for nomination and supported by one party or the other?

It is perfectly true that Republican jurists are rather likely to think Brown, Roe, and lots of other cases where liberal views were affirmed to have been wrongly decided, and it is because Republicans want those decisions overturned that they want these judges on the bench.

And it is perfectly true that these preferences and views are as far from the American political center as are all the other aspects of the conservative war on what progressives have made of our government, laws, and society over the last hundred plus years.

A point that cannot be made often enough.

None of the conservative agenda is centrist.

And especially not the parts espoused by Schultz.