Not that anyone's going to listen to a guy like me but I would like to suggest that the battle over Brett Kavanaugh points out a fundamental problem with the way we now select our Supreme Court Justices. It's that only a simple majority vote is required to confirm or reject a nominee. You can do it with 51 votes. You can do it with 50 and a Vice-President breaking the tie.
Before filibusters got eliminated a year or two ago, it took 60. If it still took 60, Brett Kavanaugh would never make it. And before you say, "Who would?", well lots of people have. Barack Obama's two nominees were confirmed 63-37 and 68-31. John Roberts, nominated by George W. Bush, was confirmed 78-22. (That Bush's other nomination, Alito, got in with 58-42 because Democrats declined to use the filibuster that was then possible.) Bill Clinton's two nominees were confirmed 87-9 and 96-3.
George H.W. Bush nominated two men to the High Court. David Souter was confirmed 90-9 while Clarence Thomas got in with 52-48. Guess which of those hearings involved screaming and charges of character assassination.
I submit they should not only reinstate the filibuster but even consider raising the number of necessary votes to 67. Even 60 though would mean that any President who sits down to select a nominee would have to come up with someone who could pass muster with more than a few members of the opposition party. They could still be a little left-leaning or right-leaning but it would get rid of the overt desire to put someone in place who would reliably, always and without exception on any important matter, vote according to the "proper" party line.
That kind of partisan justice is the problem. Even before questions of Kavanaugh's drinking and temperament and alleged molesting were raised, Democrats were opposing him for the same reason Trump and the Heritage Society picked him: Because he'd be that kind of always-vote-one-way judge. Merrick Garland had past support from quite a few Republicans but that didn't matter. They wanted an always-vote-Republican justice and since no Obama nominee was going to be one, they decided to block any Obama nominee.
It's a game that can't help but backfire on both parties eventually, hurting Democrats now and Republicans some time down the road whenever Democrats retake control. That's when they'll get an always-vote-Democratic justice onto the bench and it'll go back and forth until there's no such thing as "settled law" in this country.
We oughta reinstate the filibuster or even go to 67 before that occurs but I expect the chances of that happening are about the same as the chances of me getting nominated to the Highest Court in the Land. Hey, but at least there wouldn't be a big battle then. All the opposition would have to do to defeat me overwhelmingly is give everyone the URL to this blog or tell them I was involved with the birthing of Scrappy Doo. I could be the fastest unanimous vote ever.