I watched CSPAN (but with subtitles instead of volume) yesterday afternoon and saw a debate about a judicial confirmation. First Patrick ? Leahy opposed, the Orrin Hatch rebutted. Both speakers laid out "incontrovertible" arguments about the merits and demerits of a confirmation.

I was left scratching my head (and not just because I didn't disagree with every one of Hatch's points!)

I was interested in feeling out my peers in AD about what the rights and responsibilities are of the Senate in confirmation hearings. How much do they need to know? Should they feel out candidates legal positions on issues? Should they investigate their personal stories? Should they restrict themselves to qualifications only? I don't want to poison the well with my opinions and I was hoping some of you would get the opinions started.

We already have a similar thread going here: Judicial Nominations, Leahy promises and consent but since it was started by a now banned member, I say let's pick up the conversation in this thread.

(I'm closing the old one)

Thanks, I did no research on existing threads.