I doubt it. But it would be fair to surmise that based on comments she made in testimony . “I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning”. "I believe that it’s appropriate to look at the original intent, original public meaning, of the words when one is trying to assess because, again, that’s a limitation on my authority to import my own policy.”
She said “adherence to text” requires a judge “to figure out what those words mean as they were intended by the people who wrote them. So, at this point, I’m looking at original documents. I am focusing on the original public meaning because I’m constrained to interpret the text.”
Such sentiments sunk Robert Bork's nomination .

.

She said there were times when "looking at those words [is] not enough to tell you what they actually mean. You look at them in the context of history. You look at the structure of the Constitution. You look at the circumstances that you’re dealing with in comparison to what those words meant at the time that they were adopted.”

Again more originalism. She said she rejects the idea of a living constitution which “infuses” the document “with my own policy perspective or . . . the policy perspective of the day.” “The prevailing interpretive frame for interpreting the Constitution is now very clearly looking back through history” .

Rhetorically she is right on. Scalia could not have said it better . He once said “Day by day, case by case, the Supreme Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.”

Do I believe this defender of child pornography and Gitmo detainees when she says her rulings are based on originalism ? No ;but I have been fooled before by what nominees say in confirmation testimony.

Have to remember that we are dealing with a woman who claims she does not know what "woman" means since it was within the context of being asked a direct question by, you guessed it, another woman.

Yes she walks on PC egg shells . She is trying to ease concerns of moderates and conservatives while at the same time signal her support for the woke crowd . The goal of these hearings since Bork has been for nominees to not trip up by giving vanilla answers to necessary questions about their judicial philosophy or what a judge thinks her job is and how to do it. That is why we get pabulum like Robert's reference to being a referee .

When Jackson was asked about philosophy she pivoted to answers about methodology. "I do not have a judicial philosophy, per se,” she lied .
As a circus judge she often deferred to “precedent” . Well as a associate justice of SCOTUS she will not be bound by “precedent” . So Senators need more to properly evaluate how she might base her decisions . Regurgitating some freshman law school text on the process of how judges decide cases is not helpful.
So she ran with originalist language that torpedoed Bork when Clueless ran the committee .In expressing originalism she runs counter to the very advocate groups that support justices that go with a more activist role of the judiciary; and applaud her nomination .They urged Clueless appoint judges who would advance “the administration’s priorities” such as “preserving protections for the Affordable Care Act, voting rights, women and reproductive rights, communities of color, LGBTQ communities, workers, the environment, consumers, and key civil rights.”

Statement of Principles: The Biden Administration Must Prioritize Judges — AFJ (https://www.afj.org/document/statement-of-principles-the-biden-administration-must-prioritize-judges/)

She will be confirmed . Joe Manchin assured that yesterday .