In her testimony during her confirmation for solicitor general, she wrote: “I wrote that I was frustrated by what I called Justice Ginsburg’s ‘pincer movement’ — the tendency to say that questions were either too specific or too general to be able to answer, with little ground in between. Even at the time I wrote the review, I agreed with Justice Ginsburg that a judicial nominee should not forecast how she would decide a particular case; the question that seemed different to me, as noted above, was whether a nominee could answer questions about ‘judicial methodology,’ ‘prior case law,’ ‘hypothetical cases’ and ‘general issues.’ I think I made clear in the review that I would have done the same thing as Justice Ginsburg given prevailing conventions and standards. (I asked in the review, ‘Who would have done anything different?’) The question I raised in the review was whether those conventions and standards were correct. As noted in my answer above, my views on this question have evolved in some ways, but I continue to think the question well worth exploring.”