As many (some?) of you know, I was "lucky" enough to take Constitutional Law from Prof. John "Torture? Hell yeah!" Yoo at Berkeley, back before his tenure at OLC in the Bush Administration. This was Con Law I, which mainly focused on things like separation of powers, the rights and duties of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and not, e.g., the Bill of Rights, due process, etc.*
One of his observations in class, and I forget how this came up, was that he would never want to be a Judge. A Supreme Court Justice, on the other hand.... And so here we are, faced with another kabuki dance of pretending a nomination to the Supreme Court is the same as any other position in the Judicial branch, and as long as someone has the necessary prerequisites, how can you possibly object?!!? He (and for all but 3 FOUR justices it has been "he"), has a distinguished career as a circuit court judge, writing decent opinions, and he "follows the law". What's to complain?
Well, SCOTUS justices don't have to "follow the law." At least on Constitutional questions and to a decent extent on statutory interpretation, they "make" the law. So that a circuit court justice actually felt bound by SCOTUS decisions and other precedent is neither here nor there. It seems likely that Kavanaugh's appointment will shift the court significantly to the right, making CJ Roberts and not J. Kennedy the median vote - and with Kavanaugh/Gorsuch/Alito forming a wildly conservative 3 vote block on most issues, 4 if you include Thomas, this does not bode well for the majority of Americans, perhaps the vast majority.
Anyway, just felt the need to get that off my chest.
P.S. There's something about Mitch McConnell that's so hypocritical it's like how much more hypocritical could he be? And the answer is none. None more hypocritical.
*Needless to say the powers of the President as taught by Prof. Yoo in class didn't exactly match up with his analysis in his OLC memos. Funny that.