Building on Lee Epstein et al. (2006) article “The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees”, this study seeks to explore the representation of ideological questions during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh. As previous studies seek to explore the characteristics and political agenda of confirmation hearings, there is more to be discovered about the representation of ideological questions. In addition, more studies tend to explain the reasons why landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade has managed to be overturned and scholars have demonstrated the need to study ideological polarization in the Supreme Court. To study overrulings and ideological polarization in the Supreme Court, this article explores the very beginning of the issue: the confirmation hearings of justices to the Supreme Court of the United States. By being attentive to the main themes of questions during the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh, this paper explores the representation of ideological questions versus questions of fact. This theoretical perspective facilitates the exploration of further studies regarding upcoming confirmation hearings. This article indicates the reliance on the theory of Lee Epstein et al., and claims that the previous confirmation hearings have a strong representation of ideological questions.