Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

In the wake of Neil Gorsuch's recent confirmation to the Supreme Court, there has been an outcry from many about the usefulness of his confirmation hearing. The process was lengthy and the judge was asked about any cases and his opinions on them, but his answers did not amount to much. For example, when asked about his opinion on the Constitutionality of abortion and Roe v. Wade, Gorsuch stated that the case was "the law of the land." This is a technically true statement that reveals nothing about Gorsuch's opinion on the topic or how he would be likely to vote on a similar case. By answering many questions in a similar manner, Gorsuch was able to progress through the hearings without giving away much information that could be used against him. Understandably, many were upset.

Approaching confirmation hearings this way is a practice stretching back to a Reagan appointee, Robert Bork. A Democratic Senate questioned Bork ruthlessly about many of his policy positions, and a number of activist groups, especially women's groups and civil rights groups, publicly criticized him and asked the Senate not to confirm him. He was denied with 54 votes against.

Since then, no nominee has been particularly forthcoming on their opinions or positions during any Supreme Court confirmation hearings. This is true for nominees of both parties. One notable case is Elena Kagan, who had criticized the farcical hearings in a paper in the Harvard Law Journal years earlier, but provided as little insight into her decisions as anyone else.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-neil-gorsuchs-confirmation-hearings-were-a-waste-of-time-w473556
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination
https://www.congress.gov/111/chrg/shrg67622/CHRG-111shrg67622.htm