re: Hard no on Barbara Lagoa

Correct - she was answering the question as a nominee for a court lower than the Supreme.

No reason to exclude her for saying she would abide by the precedent set by a higher court.

It was not only a proper answer, it was pragmatic in the context of the process she was going through at the time. The Democrats were attempting a gotcha, and she prudently told them there was no reason to even go there.