Prior to the 1950s, SCOTUS nominees almost never had to testify. Their written judicial opinions formed the substance of debate in the senate.
Then they started calling nominees to testify. Some would simply say “my record speaks for itself.” But others started elaborating. Soon the senate testimonies became routine, but were respectful.
Then with judge Bork, who was eminently qualified, the left realized it could start using the hearings to trash nominees and prevent their appointment. And here we are.
Yeah, weird they do any hearings. What did the nominee do wrong to need a hearing over? Just vote.
Prior to the 1950s, SCOTUS nominees almost never had to testify. Their written judicial opinions formed the substance of debate in the senate.
Then they started calling nominees to testify. Some would simply say “my record speaks for itself.” But others started elaborating. Soon the senate testimonies became routine, but were respectful.
Then with judge Bork, who was eminently qualified, the left realized it could start using the hearings to trash nominees and prevent their appointment. And here we are.
And Bork becomes a verb.
As far as I can tell, it is precedent to have a hearing with any potential federal judges, but it's more of a guideline than a rule