Liberals have litmus tests and make sure their nominees are ideologically pure. Conservatives seeks judges who will “uphold the Constitution” and “rule on law.” That leaves a wide latitude when actual cases come before the Court.
Exactly my point WHY Clinton and Obama were far more successful in getting judges on SCOTUS who voted the way they wanted.
It's hard to imagine a RAT president picking some obscure low-key Democrat judge with no paper trail who attends an ultra-conservative Assembly of God church that preaches homosexuality is a sin, abortion is an abomination, with a Trump-loving pastor.... and the RAT base shrugging their shoulders and going "gosh, his personal life don't matter, all that matters is the White House told us his judicial philosophy is for a living, breathing constitution, so that means he will vote the way we want. Gaia bless President Obama for giving us a pro-choice judge!"
But reverse that scenario, and that was exactly the sitution we got with Gorsuch.
To be fair, other FReepers (campaignPete made a great point) have correctly pointed out a big problem is media bias... the media presents all RAT picks, no matter how far-left insane commies they are, of being "mainstream" SLIGHTLY left of center (Ruth Bader Ginsburg is touted as a moderate RAT, and the public actually buys that BS if they haven't looked at her record) and likewise paints any GOP judge as a hardliner right-wing Jesse Helms type... Kavanaugh was pretty much Anthony Kennedy 2.0, a bland slightly conservative guy, but the RATS painted him as Augusto Pinochet on steroids, and the media duly reported the "Kavanaugh is a bible thumping woman hating nazi who wants to send America back to the stone age" BS.
Also, I've said for years that the "GOP presidents keep appointing liberal judges but RAT presidents NEVER appoint conservative judges" argument is false. It's RARE that a RAT president "accidentally" appoints a SCOTUS judge who betrays them and ends up voting with conservatives on numerous "landmark" rulings, but it does happen. The two obvious examples from the last 100 years are Woodrow Wilson appointing James Clark McReynolds (who went on to oppose anything and everything in FDR's New Deal agenda, continuously striking it down as unconstitutional), and JFK appointing Byron White (who "evolved" into a decent right-of-center SCOTUS judge who often voted with the conservative bloc on social issues)
No system is foolproof.
But I think we'd have a much BETTER track record of getting ACTUAL conservatives if GOP presidents grew a spine and tried appointing some.
I'm sad to see FR seems to have the "only RINOs are electable" mindset on here, except applying that "logic" to SCOTUS appointments instead of Senate, House, and Gubernatorial races.
Bork wasn't electable, Alito was. If we took the advice of the Gorsuch apologists back in 2005, we'd have Justice Harriet Miers now. You'll never know if you don't try.