>>Fake News people are concerned about how he might vote on Roe V. Wade.

In my opinion, that's one of the ways in which the US democracy is being unraveled.

In the end, the Supreme Court is not supposed to make law. That's judicial activism, because making laws is the job of popularly elected Congress.

Separation of roles is so important that in some jurisdictions, a SC or equivalent judge is not even supposed to set foot in parliament buildings.

Going forward, if the Supreme Court ever is to rule on Roe V Wade, it means that popularly elected representatives sought to change the law, and now Supreme Court judges for life, are expected to deviate from that.

So: if the suggestion is that the SC is partisan and may vote on party or ideological lines rather than applying the law dispassionately- which is what did appear to happen in certain recent cases, FWIW- then the model has failed and the citizenry needs to elect a new sort of representative that will fix it rather than scheming to try to stack the SC with activist judges who can countermand popular edict.