You're not answering because the question destroys your whole schtick.
Do I need to repeat it? I think so.
No.
I’m not answering your questions because you’re hopeless. You have no problem supporting a liberal-—indeed, even becoming liberal yourself in order to justify doing so.
Also, you don’t even know what you post from moment to moment.
You’re a waste of my time.
It worked out pretty well in Bush v Gore.
As for O’Connor and Kennedy getting to the SCOTUS, you obviously don’t know your history. Mark Levin has discussed this numerous times that he was on the team that was apart of the vetting process with Ed Meese in which they reviewed every nook and cranny decision that the two had ever done. And when concerns about some of Kennedy’s past statements were raised, Kennedy “assured” them that his legal mindset was one of originalist intent to the point Levin has now called out Kennedy for flat out lying and that if Kennedy had been truthful in those interviews about his real beliefs he would have never been nominated.
In other words, people lie.
As for O’Connor, she supposedly evolved, but again that decision was made based on the best information they had available at the time.
As for who Trump would nominate, who the Hell knows? He’s proven in his previous statements he doesn’t have a clue about the out of control judicial lawlessness of the courts and has stated his own pro-abortion sister would make a “phenomenal” justice. Trump gets a D- on the Constitution. If he doesn’t understand what the real role of the judiciary is, he will get it wrong.