But my first reaction is negative. She holds too firm, almost absolutely firm, certain principles, such as "life tenure" for judges. Life tenure is the clear and powerful bias for judges, but it is not absolute. Judges can answer to the people, but the people's direct influence is weak, acting through a legislature that may prefer to be unaccountable for its decisions, preferring to lay the heat at the feet of the Courts.
I'm not saying her answers disqualify her, and I would hardly expect the point I made above to be more than an academic point under current realities and assumptions. But a clear understanding of the Constitution includes some of the facilities that while rarely used, are not never used, and may at some time be used in the future.
I think she has a conventional (meaning not seeing the gap between the present condition and what the Founders intended) view of government. I have the impression that she sees that the way things are now is approximately correct.
Just my gut reaction, first impression, composed without wordsmithing, etc., so keep that in mind as you level your flamethrowers.
Yes, because life tenure for judges comes straight out of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution!!! If you want a strict constructionist, then they doggone well better hold firm, too firm, absolutely firm to the Constitution!!!