Is the SCOTUS confirmation hearing anything more than a grandstanding opportunity?

Question

I listened to the first day of Senate confirmation hearings today for SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Today was just the opening statements by all the members of the Judiciary Committee, and nothing that was said was unexpected: Democrats repeated their complaints about the hypocracy of rushing this confirmation process after blocking Obama's nomination in the last year of his term, and decried that the GOP is trying to get her on the bench so she can be the deciding vote in an upcoming challenge to the Affordable Care Act; while Republicans pointed out that it's their duty and right to confirm a nominee, and Barrett is a highly qualified judge.

There are three more days of committee hearings, and then there's going to be a vote in the full Senate, which I think will also allow Senators to make speeches. It all seems like an incredible waste of time. Everyone knows each party's arguments, and her confirmation is pretty much a foregone conclusion. The votes will be mostly along party lines -- only two GOP Senators have raised any objections to proceeding with the process, and that's not enough to swing the vote. It was similar during the Kavanaugh confirmation, and he was a much more controversial nominee, as well as the Trump impeachment hearings. US politics is incredibly polarized, there's almost no hope of convincing the opposition to change their mind about something (Lindsey Graham admitted as much during his opening remarks). And a Supreme Court nomination is not like a bill that allows amendments and negotiation -- she's either in or out (even if there were some back room deals where Senators changed their votes in exchange for concessions on some other measures, there would be no way to enforce it).

So is there any point to this other than for all the committee members to put on a show for their constituents? Is the process perverted because the hearings are public?

I realize there's always going to be some grandstanding when politicians are speaking in public. The question is whether there's anything substantive to the process as well, or is it all just for show? Am I being totally naive in expecting them to use some of this process for substantive inquiry?

UPDATE:

I wasn't listening to the hearing much on October 14, but I heard on the news that there were some actual substantive questions about judicial philosophy that day. But there was also the usual dance of Democrats trying to get Barrett to admit how she would vote on likely challenges to ObamaCare (coming up next month) and Roe v. Wade (they come up regularly), and her defly refusing to answer hypotheticals like every other SCOTUS nominee has done in the past.

Answer 1

Question: The votes will be mostly along party lines -- only two GOP Senators have raised any objections to proceeding with the process, and that's not enough to swing the vote.

The nature of the confirmation is directly related to how large, disciplined, and motivated the senate majority is in supporting the candidate. A 4 seat majority in this senate is a pretty large margin and makes confirmation likely and boring. No not all confirmations are this straight forward, likewise the senate minority party has already said they are going to insert some excitement into the confirmation hearing using loopholes in the senate rules still available to them. ( deny the committee and maybe even the full senate a quorum ).

Question: There are three more days of committee hearings, and then there's going to be a vote in the full Senate, which I think will also allow Senators to make speeches.

It doesn't look like there will be a vote in the full senate, this week nor immediately following the committee hearings. The Democrats still have some cards to play. Senate rules require their be a quorum to vote the nomination out of the committee. The Republicans need 2 Democrats to attend the final vote in order to have a quorum and send the nomination to the senate floor.

Here is the article I was reading:
Schumer says Democrats won't give GOP quorum to advance Barrett nomination

The Democrats are going to deny the Republicans that quorum, which means the Republicans will need to pass a rule change prior to the nomination coming out of the committee, amending or removing the quorum requirement. That will easily push the full senate deliberations back a few days. Once out of committee, the Democrats can try the same trick on the floor of the senate, but there they will need some Republican help. The GOP has a four vote majority on the senate floor. The Republicans only need 51 votes to achieve quorum on the floor. Here the 2 GOP senators who have expressed objections about the nomination as well as the 4 GOP senators who are currently under coronavirus quarantine come into play. Here again the GOP will either change the rules to allow their Senators to vote remotely while in quarantine, or wait the week or two until out of quarantine. The Democrats are trying to push the confirmation back until after the election; where they might have a majority. They will be able to push it back some, but beyond a week or two they will probably need some further help. The really interesting thing though is we are less than 4 weeks away from the election. Any delay beyond two weeks could really put the nomination in doubt.

The Republicans could conclude the confirmation after the election. But that's problematic too. No lame duck president has had a supreme court nomination confirmed after he lost an election since John Adams did it in 1801. 220 years.

So, no solid slam dunk strategy to stop the nomination; but there is enough there to potentially make this nomination interesting.

Answer 2

Pretty much.

As I've written in a different question, it is the judicial philosophy that Democrats and Republicans disagree about, not the qualification of the candidate. Potential candidates are vetted so extensively that it is quite obvious beforehand that they are qualified.
This, however, doesn't make for a good political argument, which is why both parties still have to do their respective performance: Democrats have to show that they are sufficiently resisting, Republicans have to show a modicum of restraint and respect for the process by not rushing through it at warpspeed.
In the end it simply amounts to the fact that Republicans have the means to confirm their candidate and will do so, the rest is politics, especially in an election year.

Just for comparison:
In Germany the political parties simply make a deal based on the majorities in both of our legislative chambers that assigns the respective parties a certain amount of candidates based on their percentage of seats.

Answer 3

A Congressional hearing is a bit like a President or cabinet member offering up a trial balloon. Normally, it doesn't change the result. But every now and then it does. (There is also some room for political gamesmanship to run down the clock, especially when he clock is ticking and a new Congress with a different partisan makeup with take office on January 3, 2021.)

If there is a sudden outpouring of mass opposition from some unexpected quarter that matters to the majority (e.g. immense and rapid opposition from the Chamber of Commerce and Evangelical Christians for some unanticipated reason), or information disclosed in the hearing does something to change the majority's mind such as a disclosure that the nominee has terminal cancer and has just six months to live (which perhaps even causes the President to withdraw the nomination), it could change the outcome.

If, on the other hand, the hearing provides no surprises, it rarely changes the outcome.

Answer 4

Even if it is all about pre-set partisan agendas, then open public hearings that show only that serve a purpose to show the citizens and the public the level of disfunction, who is or isn't willing to step up and be public servants, and how much individuals and parties are willing to serve the public and try to make their lives better, versus being strictly about exercise of political power for partisan purposes.

In a democracy, citizens need to know. If they're unwilling to be informed and understand, that's their own fault, but the opportunity to observe has to be available to We The People.

If it seems frustratingly pointless and only angers the observer, then that's an indication that the voter needs to change their behavior and punish the status quo.

To quote the fake American President "Democracy isn't easy. You have to want it."