What I heard was Democrats claiming the nominees would make decisions based on their religious views while the nominees said it was improper to offer opinions at this time on cases that might someday appear before them. I believe the nominees were correct. If they announce in advance how they will rule on a specific area, then ethics would require them to recuse themselves from all cases related to that area. It was wrong of the Democrats to demand the nominees make such announcements, but it was an interesting tactic. If the nominee refuses to answer, then they can denounce him/her. If the nominees does answer, then they can't rule on subsequent cases. Kinds of a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" proposition.

In at least one case, Judge Moore of Alabama was being denounced as a religious conservative who would force his religious views from the bench. However, this is the same Judge Moore who forced the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court. He obviously didn't let his religious views stand in the way of that decision.

I get the impression that the Democrats are so used to liberal judges making rulings based on ideology instead of the law that they expect everyone does so. It's kind of like the projection argument used against accused homophobes, that they must have homosexual tendencies.