No, it wouldn’t be “Why, oh why won’t you just withdraw your name from consideration?”
It would be this:
When in your career have you taken an action that you found personally repugnant, but that you were required by law to take?
With John Roberts, we didn’t have to ask. There was already an example out there: the French-fry case. He clearly didn’t like ruling against the little girl arrested for eating a single French fry. But the relevant precedents required it, so he did.
That’s my kind of judge. Once I read the French-fry case, I was more sold than ever on the Roberts nomination.
Would Harriet Miers be that kind of judge? I have no idea.
So that’s the question I’d ask her.