I disagree. People who remain conservative after three years at an elite law school are less likely to “evolve” later on than those who did not have to withstand daily challenges to their worldview. And had Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas attended Liberty University Law School instead of Yale Law School they never would have been confirmed to circuit court, much less to SCOTUS.
Also, to the extent that there is a correlation between intellectual and academic ability and the law schools at which applicants are accepted (and there is, albeit obviously not a perfect one), it is preferable to appoint conservatives who graduated from more selective law schools than those from less selective law schools, since the ability to make clever arguments and write convincingly like a Scalia could do is just as important as is voting the right way. Scalia was the sole dissenter in Morrison v. Olsen, and his dissent arguing that the Independent Counsel law violated separation of powers (given that Article II of the U.S. Constitution provides that the executive power is vested in the president) convinced so many people over the next couple of decades (I can tell you that even liberal students at Yale Law School had to admit that he had made the better argument) that Congress eventuallly let the statute lapse due to constitutional concerns.
We need judges who are smart (and acknowledged to be so), conservative and confirmable. The easiest way to accomplish that is to nominate conservatives who graduated from elite law schools and have been vetted by the Federalist Society, which is pretty much the way that President Trump and Senate Majority Leader McConnell have been able to remake the federal judiciary.
And, as I pointed out, George W. Bush tried to appoint Harriet Miers (Southern Methodist University graduate), which backfired big time. There was also zero evidence she was "more conservative" despite being non-Ivy League and supposedly being "Evangelical"
I also agree that if Presidents were to simply pick judges from the "most conservative" law schools, like Ave Maria, Regent University, Liberty Law School, etc., those candidates likely wouldn't be seen as serious contenders for a circuit court judgeship, let alone a SCOTUS seat.
Where I disagree is being able to remake the courts with good conservatives by going off Trump's list of vetted candidates and what the Federalist Society says. John Roberts was a card-carrying Federalist Society member. I think even Trump admits his storied "list" of "originaist" judges that his fan club gloated about on the campaign trail turned out to be a dud, the latest information is Trump is ditching it after seeing SCOTUS morph into Burger Court 2.0, and having his team draw up a new "list" that will supposedly be better this time around.
IMO, Eagle Forum's short list was FAR superior to Trump's, and he should have listed to them: