A judge should be examined before he is confirmed, not waved through against a clock, and giving the Senate a real chance to search out a nominee's record is the cautious, defensible side of this. Folly is answering a matter before you have heard it. The honest counter a careful voter should hold is that a longer review window can also mean longer judicial vacancies and more leverage for the Senate to stall a nominee it simply dislikes. This is housekeeping, not a culture-war fight — it passed with almost no opposition — so weigh it on the merits: do you want appointments vetted more slowly and carefully, or filled faster? On balance it leans 'yes' for anyone who values deliberation over speed on the bench.
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."
— Proverbs 18:13 (KJV)