In those years, Alan Simpson, a prominent Senate Judiciary Committee Republican, warned that the Democrats’ scorched earth tactics would “jade and gall us for years to come.” The eventual upshot, he predicted, would be would be a nominee Simpson dubbed Jerome P. Sturdley, whom he described as a “faceless, witless, and terminally bland soul.”

Sturdley, Simpson’s imaginary lawyer, had written little that was “thoughtful, challenging, or provocative,” and would reveal nothing about his true views on constitutional law. It can be argued that Souter, who actually hid his views, and Thomas, who claimed to have never discussed Roe v. Wade, were the first two Sturdleys. There have been others. Modern presidents don’t try to get an Earl Warren or Louis Brandeis. Today’s model is the young Ivy League ideologue with little practical experience who’s been toiling on the appellate bench issuing blandly partisan opinions.

The last four appointees, two by George W. Bush and two by Barack Obama, fit this model: John Roberts and Samuel Alito; Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. All four were confirmed comfortably, but a pattern has emerged. In each of those cases, significant numbers of opposition party senators voted against the nominee just because they differed with them politically.