Four days of grueling confirmation hearings for Judge Sam Alito, and what have we learned that we didn't already know? Nothing. No one's mind was changed -- every Senator already knew which way he or she would vote soon after hearing that Alito would be the nominee, if not before. The only purpose of such a show is to play a public "gotcha" game, as Senators attempt to trap nominees into saying something that can be used to hurt them in the media.

It's about time we stop forcing nominees to endure hostile interrogations that serve no purpose whatsoever, and possibly violate restrictions on psychological torture. At one point, as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) apologised for the reprehensible behavior of the Democrats on the committee, Alito's wife broke down in tears. We don't need any more of these useless confirmation hearings, the specter of which probably keeps some excellent potential public servants out of the job pool.

Harlan Fiske Stone was the first Supreme Court nominee to appear before the Judiciary Committee in 1925, but the process of confirmation hearings didn't become standard until thirty years later. As far as I'm concerned, the process ceased to have any meaning in 1993, when Ruth Bader Ginsberg perfected the now-standard practice of saying nothing at all before the Committee through lawyerly evasion and use of double-speak. Her non-performance has been the template for all confirmation hearings ever since.

We already knew that Senators love to hear themselves talk more than anything else, and will take any opportunity to grab as much "face time" in front of the cameras as humanly possible. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), for instance, spoke for twelve minutes straight at one point, before he remembered that he was supposed to be asking a question. Alito, like every Bush nominee to every position, was forced to spend several days keeping absolutely still, wearing a poker face, as his personal and professional reputation, his judgment, his morals and his life were savaged before the cameras. The sight of Senator Ted "Splash" Kennedy (D-MA) accusing anyone of being a misogynistic elitist would have been laughable, were it not so morally repulsive. The only thing missing from the circus was Senator Bobby "Sheets" Byrd (D-WV) making a special guest appearance to accuse Alito of being a racist. Instead, that task also fell to Kennedy, who lied about Alito's record, stating that Alito had never decided any case in favor of a minority.

Before the hearings, we knew that no matter how many times the Senators asked the same questions, Judge Alito would never reveal what he thought about controversial cases like Roe v. Wade. "Controversial," especially in this case, means, "a bad judicial ruling that violates the Constitution, that everyone nonetheless is supposed to pretend is a proper law." The Democratic Senators -- and not-quite-Republican Senator Arlen Specter (R?-PA) -- practically demanded that Alito chain himself to upholding Roe v. Wade at all costs. Specter even referred to it as a "super-precedent," although there is no such term in law or logic.

The Left wants all judges to swear by "stare decisis" -- a Latin term meaning to stay with that which has been decided -- in this one case alone, while cheering such decisions as Brown v. Board of Education and Lawrence v. Texas, both of which reversed previous Supreme Court decisions. The Brown decision of 1954 rightly overturned the 1896 Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the "separate but equal" doctrine was upheld. The Lawrence decision of 2003 overturned the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, in which the Supreme Court had correctly determined that sodomy laws, not being specifically addressed in the Constitution, should be decided by individual state legislatures. So why insist that this one case must never, ever be re-examined? Because the Left can not allow representatives elected by the people, supposedly answerable to the people, to vote on the most important element of the Liberal agenda.

We knew before the hearings that Alito briefly became a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton several decades ago because they were against throwing the ROTC off campus. We knew that he didn't immediately recuse himself from a case involving the investment firm Vanguard, although he did so when the plaintiff questioned his involvement. He had no legal obligation to recuse himself, as Vanguard did not benefit from his decision (and a completely different court reached the same verdict in a new trial).

We knew that he would have allowed the strip-search of a ten-year-old girl, because the warrant specified searching "all persons present" in the home of a known drug dealer. Not only was the girl a person, and present, but if the court suddenly discovered a Constitutional "age exemption" from search warrants, every criminal in America would keep a child nearby for concealment in case of a raid. We also knew that none of those things have any bearing on his fitness to sit on the Supreme Court.

How did we know all these things before the camera-hungry Senators on the Judiciary Committee wasted our tax dollars interrogating Judge Alito for four long days? Because the American Bar Association already took all those circumstances into consideration before unanimously granting Alito their highest recommendation, and their findings are a matter of public record. All those questions have already been answered for all to see.

Instead of staging a showy public witch-hunt for their own benefit, the ABA quietly studied hundreds of Alito's decisions and writings, and interviewed thousands of people with whom he had associated. No one can say that their analysis is flawed or their methods not transparent. The process of interviewing "well over 300 judges, lawyers, and members of the legal community nationwide" from "varying and different political, racial, ethnic and gender backgrounds" yielded "consistent and virtually unanimous comments" attesting to Alito's exceptional personal integrity, even judicial temperament and professional competence. Why can't the Senate use methods similar to the ABA for vetting nominees, instead of forcing us all to witness the taxpayer-funded character assassination of decent people nominated to important government positions?

It's lucky for some members of Congress that there is no such vetting agency that might impartially examine their integrity, temperament and competence. The "mainstream" media once held that job, but seems to have abandoned it to the "new" media of talk radio and the internet.