“You have declared, ‘It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v Wade,’ so this is obviously a matter of deep principle for you. My question is this: ‘Would you cast a vote to uphold a law you considered barbaric and was against your personal principles if that law appeared to be valid and constitutional?'”

That is the same question I would ask of every court nominee (absent the word “barbaric,” which is specific to her), and it is the only question I care about, so I would use all of my time until they committed to an answer. If they answered “yes” convincingly, if I believed they could vote against a deeply-held belief if to do so was the proper application of the law, I would vote to confirm. If they answered “no” or, more likely, tried to weasel out of giving an answer, I would vote to reject.

Which means I would probably vote to reject every nominee, whether “liberal” or “conservative.” I don’t care whether they are liberal or conservative. In fact, I want them to be neither, ala David Souter. I just want them to make up their minds AFTER studying the case, not before.