Are Confirmation Hearings effective in preventing unqualified appointments or have they become mere formalities?

Historically, confirmation hearings were intended to serve as a safeguard, ensuring that appointees possessed the necessary expertise, integrity, and independence. Yet, in an era of heightened partisanship, many hearings have become performative exercises rather than genuine evaluations of competency. When senators prioritize party loyalty over qualifications, the process loses its intended function, leading to appointments that undermine the effectiveness of governance.

Given these concerns, should reforms be implemented to restore the credibility of confirmation hearings? For example, would requiring a supermajority vote for confirmation, rather than a simple majority, improve the selection process? Alternatively, should independent, nonpartisan panels play a greater role in vetting nominees before they even reach the Senate?