The question really should never be what a nominee
believes. That is irrelevant with reference to the law. The question should be whether they
understand the law and the Constitution intelligently enough to
know that SCOTUS has been inventing laws and reading quack liberal social science back into the Constitution (particularly in crackpot rulings like Roe vs. Wade). It is an
intellectual matter of how people
understand the Constitution. That the U.S. Constitution does not grant a universal "right" to take the life of unborn humans indiscriminately throughout the nine months of development including infanticidal murder as in "partial-birth" abortion is a matter of direct
knowledge not beliefs. Quack wacko liberal secular humanists made up the "right to abortion" in their deranged fantasies during the sordid 1970s.
That the U.S. Constitution does not grant a universal "right" to take the life of unborn humans indiscriminately throughout the nine months of development including infanticidal murder as in "partial-birth" abortion is a matter of direct knowledge not beliefs. You are right and it doesn't take a judge with a lot of time on the bench to know that or a lawyer either for that matter.
Ann Coulter has suggested that Bush might as well have appointed his gardner. I wouldn't have a problem with that as long as the gardner was well versed in the constitution and was not apt to read things into it that aren't there.