By design.

3 branches of government.

Legislative (Congress critters): They make the laws.

Executive (President and Vice): Enforce the laws (and sign them).

Judicial (USSC): They determine whether a law is unConstitutional and they interpret them.

In THEORY.......

Congress will only pass good laws.
...
in the event of a failure, the President will veto the bad law.
...
in the event of a second failure, the USSC will rule the law unConstitutional.

But the USSC cannot MAKE a law.

Only interpret EXISTING law.

Now, we've got a conservative guy not only arguing that they do create laws, but because they do, their POLITICAL VIEWS NEED TO BE HEARD!

Whether or not they should be talking about their politics, this guy is a COMPLETE FLAKE!

The ONLY reason for checking a judge's POLITICS is to CIRCUMVENT the balance of power we THEORETICALLY have.

From the article:

But many voters are understandably skeptical of abstractions, and want to hear details about legal questions that are important to them \ufffd for instance, what the candidate thinks about the state constitution's right to bear arms, or its right to privacy, or about expansions of tort liability.

And what the judges think about such matters is NOT important. All that is important is that they rule on the laws passed by the other two branches.

I don't care if the judge personally believes in gun control if the OTHER TWO BRANCHES have passed laws saying that we're free to own them.

If the "voters" are "understandably skeptical of abstractions", then they need to vote for Congress critters and Presidents who will pass the laws they want.

Not try to end-run around the laws by stacking the judicial branch.