Were I a senator at the hearings, I would ask:
Are you a strict constructionist?
If HM says no, I would thank her and vote no.
If HM says yes, I would thank her and ask her for her public writings on the topic. If she has none, then I would vote no.
OK, I am not a senator on the committee. But the questions should be asked. There's no good answers that HM can give that I can see from here.
The only possible way out is for the senators not to ask her hard questions if they want her confirmed.
Is that the way to run a nominating committee? Avoid asking hard questions? HM might be good, but she should see the obvious and do the right thing now. The nominating committee may give her a pass, but the grassroots won't. They're the ones who "get out the vote." We're headed towards Hillary! 2008 if HM is not withdrawn.
She should withdraw.
These hearings are little more than a Kabuki dance anyway. 17 minutes of questions/speeches, 3 minutes of non-answers. Roberts won confirmation by showing those "Senators" that all of them put together were not as smart as he. Now we shall see if he is really a constitutionalist, or just the smartest guy in the room.
As far as I'm concerned, one stealth nomination is more than enough.