As we record this, Democrats in the Senate are preparing to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, and not just because they're concerned about his judicial record.

House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer explains.

Both sides, I know, are pointing fingers at the other in this debate, saying the other side started it.

We did not get our nominee when Senator McConnell broke 230 years of Senate precedent

and didn't even allow Judge Garland a hearing and a vote.

For their part, Republicans are vowing to confirm him by the end of the week, even if this means

Senate rules have to change to get rid of the filibuster, the so-called nuclear option.

It's just another reminder that the way things used to work was better.

Certainly that's what critics across the spectrum, no matter where they point their fingers seem to say, but better when.

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick is a frequent guest on this show and host of her own excellent podcast about the law, Amicus.

This week she took a closer look at the congressional vetting of Supreme Court nominees to learn more about

how this exercise used to go. And now we offer it to you. Last week's confirmation hearing for

Neil Gorsuch was, in addition to being a spectacular piece of political theater, also kind of

an exercise in nostalgia for confirmations past. At many times in the

hearings, various senators and then the nominee himself were waxing poetic about some golden era of

confirmation hearings where nominees held forth on substantive doctrine and also civil hearing lasted

just a matter of minutes. Here is Senate Democrat,

Patrick Leahy, longing for the bygone years when nominees actually answered the questions before them.

You have been very hesitant to even talk about various Supreme Court presses. I know that

Chief Justice Roberts, when he was before us, he said he agreed with Griswold and Brown.

Justice Alito said he agreed with Hamdi and Eisenstadt.

And just by way of contrast, here is Judge Neil Gorsuch,

...