Let me broaden that point a little bit. When Antonin Scalia, a committed judicial conservative, was nominated by Reagan, he was confirmed 98 to nothing. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated by Clinton and actually told the committee, Yeah, I’m going to support abortion rights, she was confirmed 96 to three. Today, it’s almost unimaginable that a nominee from a president of one party is going to get more than a handful of votes from the other party, from senators. In fact, when Jackson was nominated for the Court of Appeals, when usually senators give a president a lot more deference because it’s a lower court, she got all of three Republican votes.
And there’s one other point I think to your point, these hearings often are staging areas for political arguments. When Barrett, Amy Barrett was nominated, the Democrats used it to say, You’re going to kill Obamacare. And here’s what’s terrible about Trump’s health plan, by the way, she didn’t. And to your point, we’re now hearing, well, she was a public defender. We’re looking at all the terrible people she defended. She was on a sentencing commission that unanimously argued for lower sentences. She’s soft on sexual offenders. And that’s because crime, as we talked about a few weeks ago, is an ascending issue. And the Republicans want to make sure that the country, to the extent anybody listens, is hearing that this nominee is, to use the old phrase, soft on crime. And that’s why the idea that you know, there’s going to be any light as opposed to heat out of these hearings. I wouldn’t put a whole lot of money on it.