Redward, this seems like a very literal way of looking at what SCt nominees say (or earlier opine). The point of hearings is not to split hairs, but to find out if a nominee has a bias regarding settled law that would potentially compel them to overturn it, if the chance presented itself. Ginsburgh clearly expresses, all through her career, that she wants to support abortion rights. Even if Roe v Wade didn't implement this the way she wanted, she isn't going to overturn it in a situation that would send us to The Handmaid's Tale, or at least have low-income women faced with only the option of traveling to another state to get an abortion (i.e. denying abortion to those who lack funds for this). Kavanaugh, meanwhile, expresses clearly, all through his career, his opposition to abortion, even going so far as to question the fundamental basis of Roe v Wade and stating that it doesn't meet the Glucksberg Test. This is very far from an agreement that Roe can't be overturned. Saying "I really liked the dissenting opinion of Justice Rehnquist" is not really an affirmation of Roe, and you can't really think you can peddle that spin here.