I wish I had your confidence in her conservative credentials. Yes, she has confided to one witness that she is pro-life. But I'm not sure whether that means she would have the guts to go against stare decisis and reverse Roe v. Wade and Casey, which is the kind of thing that needs to be done.
Or, given her frequent plugs on behalf of diversity, would she have the guts to reverse the recent constitutional-right-to-buggery decision? I'm not saying that there should be laws against homosexual activities, but I am saying that there's nothing in the constitution to this effect and that the matter should be settled by the voters and legislators, not the courts. Anything else is exceedingly dangerous.
Or would she reverse the recent findings supported by Sandra Day O'Connor that favor racial preferences and affirmative action in the universities? Again, I find that her writings point the other way.
There are several candidates who, we can be pretty certain, are reliable enough as constitutionalists to do these things. So, why take a chance betting on an unknown. Sure, she's Christian, but a lot of Christians are pro-abortion, whatever their creeds may say.
"Again" as if you had that for the gays and the pro-life? Haw.
What did you EXPECT her to say about a generalized question about "stare decisis"? You have to scope the question, which is whether she views the duty of the Supreme Court to include always persisting in a foolish consistency. As you know, it HAS reversed itself many times through years of history. On abortion, O'Connor got hung up on the infinitely abusable "health of the mother" issue. There's lots of ways to reason to a different policy, and I am sure Scalia and Thomas and Roberts will be glad to fill her in on just how.