From my Notes: The Judiciary nomination process

Back in July, I Noted this during the Sotomayor nomination process:

The problem with the Judiciary nomination process is that it has now become so political with the misguided focus on the nominee's ideology versus the strength of the nominee's impartiality.

Now, I believe there is room for Senators to question a nominee's belief system as it is impossible for said nominee to be completely unbiased. A nominee is nominated because the President believes the person in question is aligned similarly with the President's views, so even before the debate begins, ideology is already at play.

Democracy at play.

Elections have consequences. When the people vote for their representatives, I would assume it is because they agree with the majority of that politicians views (at least that's what I hope is the case; they're will always be wedge issue voters though).

Because of this, the will of the voters needs to be upheld. The minority has the weaker position of a vote. So to see the minority consistently hold up the nomination process is very undemocratic (or maybe it's the rules not and the Senator is just playing the game). The focus should be on impartiality. The main criteria should be, "Can this person effectively suspend his or her own viewpoints while holding court?"

How to effectively measure this is something I'm still wondering about.