Confirmation hearings gotten worse, indeed...

This article chronicles (somewhat honestly) the development of inquisition-like confirmation hearings to the SCOTUS. But the article neglects to point out that the hearings have moved from being about judicial philosophy to being about political philosophy--that is, how a judge would vote if they were in a legislature. An "expert" quoted in the article says about the Dems' reaction to Reagan's appointees: "They said, 'If the president can nominate based on ideology, then why can't we reject on the basis of ideology, and why can't we ask questions about the ideology of nominees.'"

That's inaccurate. Political ideology is only relevant to the discussion of the judiciary because the Left's vision of the Court as a super-legislature has prevailed. That is not rule of law and it is not the vision of our country's founders.

In fact, the pattern has been for the Dems to excoriate GOP nominees and attempt to derail them by any means necessary (remember Clarence Thomas?). That is the thesis of the article that should be written about this process.