“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.

Did you know …

In a presidential election in the USA, it is possible to get more than 75% of the popular vote in a two-person election, only to see your opponent inaugurated.

Here’s how that could happen: Larry Loser wins 100% of the popular vote in states that add up to 268 electoral votes, but he loses the remaining states by the smallest margin possible. Depending on the exact breakdown of the states (or sub-states in the cases of Maine and Nebraska), that would result in one candidate winning the popular vote by approximately a 3-to-1 ratio, but losing the electoral college 270-268.