MARTHA MACCALLUM (HOST): [Senators] have the right to vote down anybody that they want. So I mean, what do you think about that choice? Do you think it's a right or wrong choice for them not to have a hearing? 

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: I would prefer that there be a vote not on just the merits of the nominee, but whether the nominee ought to be on the Supreme Court at this point in time. But we will not see that because the senators will never acknowledge that they're voting for someone because they agree with his or her political philosophy or disagree with the philosophy. The vote is going to be is he qualified or not. Now, when Robert Bork was nominated by President Reagan, they destroyed him. They destroyed his history and his personality in order to vote against him because they lacked the moral courage to say we're going to vote against him because we disagree with him. Senators do not do that. If they did, they'd be free to vote their conscience. 

MACCALLUM: So you think that's what they're doing, they're avoiding putting themselves in the position where they have to sort of destruct someone on a personality level or other issues other than how they would vote in the future.

Previously: 

Judicial Crisis Network Distorts Potential SCOTUS Nominee's Record To Absurdly Suggest He's A Radical

Why Five Big Conservative Myths About The Judicial Nomination Process Are Wrong

Fox Legal Analyst Admits GOP Obstruction Of SCOTUS Nominee Is “Unprecedented,” “Might Be A Constitutional Crisis”