So, you're saying that Supreme Court picks should be judged solely and entirely by the people who nominate them, and their own words and records should be ignored?
Considering I
didn't say that, no. If he had a record that strongly indicated he would be willing to defend abortion rights, that included more than words, it might offset the flat fact he was nominated by someone who explicitly wants the previous ruling squashed and is hostile to the general subject (if largely by proxy in the repeat adulterer's case). If there's more than words behind his record, I'm not aware of it. Roe isn't the only means of attack, either, if he actually held true to that quoted statement.
Though I'd trust the world of a trump nominee to SCOTUS on their willingness to oppose republican political goals about as far as I could throw them, sitting in my bed multiple states away from the capital. We were promised partisan activist judges, and until proven otherwise that's what I'm expecting we're going to get.
But hell, maybe abortion rights would be one of the few areas this particular critter defies the base on (already stated this guy is more corruption than that side of things, anyway). I'll believe it when I see it happen.