In June 2001, just weeks after the defection of Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vt.) gave Democrats control of the Senate, Schumer convened a hearing titled “Judicial Nominations 2001: Should Ideology Matter?”

The idea behind the hearings was this: Many senators believe that, in an ideal world, a confirmation hearing should examine a judicial nominee’s fitness and qualifications for the bench. If the nominee is fit and qualified, then he or she should be confirmed. But in the real world, senators often oppose nominees for reasons that have nothing to do with fitness or qualifications and everything to do with ideology. Feeling constrained from openly voicing their ideological objections, the senators look for some small blemish in the nominee’s record that can then be exaggerated into a reason for voting against the candidate.

“Legitimate considerations of ideological beliefs seem to have been driven underground,” Schumer said at the hearing back in 2001. “It is not that we don’t consider ideology; it is just that we don’t talk about it openly.”

And because they are hesitant to speak openly, Schumer argued, senators look for other reasons to vote against nominees they disagree with.

“Unfortunately, this unwillingness to openly examine ideology has sometimes led senators who oppose a nominee to seek out non-ideological disqualifying factors, like small financial improprieties from long ago, to justify their opposition,” Schumer said. “This, in turn, has led to an escalating war of ‘gotcha’ politics that, in my judgment, has warped the Senate’s confirmation process and harmed the Senate’s reputation.”