What's the response going to be?

Is it going to be something about originalism? or textualism? or one of the other main approaches to constitutional interpretation?

What is that answer going to say about Roberts as a candidate for the Court?

What about the fact that originalism is pretty silly when talking about the 14th amendment and the 5th amendment as they were enacted 80 years apart?

What is mostly important to me in this instance, from a legal point of view, is that the Senators ask pertinent legal questions about this judge's judicial philosophy. At this point in the process, specifically the confirmation point, we the people (I hate that phrase) through our elected representatives in washington, get the opportunity to decide how the constitution will be interpreted in the future. Such a moment extends well beyond simply whether one case, specifically Roe will be overturned or not. The questions should not necessarily be about Roberts political philosophy as much as his legal philosophy. The reality is though, we are going to get a media circus in which no reasoned discussion about the legal philosophy of the country will occur.

That said, the reason I see this as a moment in which we can redefine the abortion debate within a legalistic framework of constitutional liberties is because 1) we need to do something to break the prochoice/prolife deadlock, and 2) when discussing constitutional liberties it is important to stay within the framework of the constitution, which above all else is a legal document.

Moving further to predictions:
1) There will be no filibuster
2) Very likely this guy will be confirmed.
3) The left will ring its hands over whether or not the court will overturn Roe.
4) If the court does overturn Roe, nothing could be better for us going into the midterm elections.(this last one is iffy)