Well, the former rules never kept the Democrats from putting doctrinaire liberals on the court.
Remember the controversy over the nomination of the ACLU rep on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg??
Wait, there was no controversy. She sailed through. She got well over 90 votes for confirmation, as I recall.
Even an ACLU radical sailed through confirmation. It’s only when someone conservative is nominated, that there’s any ginned up “controversy” or “concerns” by Democrats and the media about a nominee.
Sotameyer and Kagan were very qualified in the extreme to be Supreme Court Justices. They both were Judicial Scholars. They were also political activist judges. The Republicans did not try and fillibuster them as they only looked on the qualifications as they should have done.
In the words of Scalia, "The only thing wrong with a living Constitution is that will destroy the Constitution." The Constitution means exactly what it says. It can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional amendments are hard to do. It is supposed to be difficult. That is what preserves that great document of freedom. The Democrats fillibustered Gourch because he is a strict Constitutionalist. That is the difference in what has happened.
The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret The Constitution as written and defend it. If they do anything else they have become activists and have usurped the legislative branch.