US Supreme Court justices are procedurally nominated by one politician (US president) and then interviewed, vetted and ultimately approved or rejected by about one hundred other politicians (US Senate and potentially US Vice President). This is a political process and it is impossible today to read informed discussions of the supreme court justices (former, current, and pending) without labels like "conservative" and "liberal" appearing regularly.
For exemplary purposes For example only: CNN's How Trump picked Amy Coney Barrett over Barbara Lagoa for the Supreme Court includes descriptions of conversations suggesting that the selection criteria for a nomination choice was based at least in part on how the choice of a specific candidate would help the US president be re-elected.
Question: If sufficient evidence were to be produced publicly that the nomination of a specific candidate was made primarily for political gain of the nominator and that information addressed in a question during a confirmation process, perhaps as bluntly as "You've been nominated because of optics in a battleground state for the president's reelection, is it ethical for you to continue to accept this nomination?" can the candidate say something to the effect of "I don't care" or "It doesn't matter" and simultaneously demonstrate the level of professional ethics expected not only of any federal judge but of a supreme court justice, though it might seem contrary to how the drafters and interpreters of the US constitution have stated how this political process should work?
I'm asking about the general case where opportunism can be demonstrated, not necessarily this specific case.
From the linked CNN piece, as an example only:
Instead, his imagination seemed temporarily stoked by Barbara Lagoa, the Florida-born judge who sits on the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals. In a phone call to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in the hours after Ginsburg's death was announced, Lagoa was one of a few names Trump floated as his potential pick, according to people familiar with the call. Jetting back to Washington from a rally in Minnesota on the night Ginsburg died, Trump quizzed aides whether Lagoa had to potential to secure him Florida's 29 electoral votes, people familiar with the conversations said.
Egged on by members of his political team and allies in the state, Trump appeared captivated in conversations last weekend by the prospect of nominating a woman whose biography -- daughter of Cuban exiles with roots in a community that could prove critical to his re-election -- so obviously aligned with his political prerogatives.
[...]This account is based on interviews with nearly a dozen sources, including White House officials, conservative allies and people close to the process, many who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly about Trump's selection process.