Hell, Shodan, if Bork’s opinions were a reflection of the mainstream of American law, then your opinions would be also. And you know as well as I that it just ain’t so.
13 - 6 in favor, with only one Republican voting aye (Graham).
Explain, then, the confirmation votes on Chief Justice Roberts, and on Justice Alito? :dubious:
The repubs are just playing to their constituencies. They are outside the mainstream and are clinging desperately to the Palinist /Fox cult that remains. These people are birthers, anti Obamaists, and are even able to rally around the police mistreatment of Prof. Gates. If they faced reality and did a pass on Sotomayor, the loonies might bail . They are expected to fight every move Obama makes, regardless of whether it would help the country. Saving the party is their most important product.
Since Bork, (Summer, 1987):
Kennedy confirmed, 97 - 0, 1988
Souter confirmed, 90 - 9, 1990
Thomas confirmed, 52 - 48, 1991
Ginsberg confirmed, 97 - 3, 1993
Breyer confirmed, 87 - 9, 1994
Alito confirmed, 58 - 42, 2006
Roberts confirmed, 78 - 22, 2005
So there have clearly been confirmations on both sides that went relatively smoothly, which is the only claim you are attempting to deny. Bork’s rejection did not set a standard or trend that caused all subsequent confirmations to be handled as merely partisan fights.
This sort of silly grandstanding does not inform or enlighten this discussion any more than similar exaggerations and posturing from the other side.
Don’t read very well, do you? 
Bork = bad hearing.
Ginsburg = self-suicide
Kennedy = smooth sailing
Souter = smooth sailing
Thomas = rough waters
Ginsburg = smooth sailing
Breyer = smooth sailing
So, as I’ve pointed out before, until the rancorous hearings over Alito and Roberts (in which the Democrats were the “heavies”, the Bork and Thomas hearings were abnormalities. The tendency, even after Bork, was for hearings to be smooth affairs.
This forum isn’t called Great Posturing?
It would be easier to take if the posturing was actually great and not merely self-serving.
Another Great Posturing.
You mean like these? 
Actually, I read pretty well. What I read was your allegation that Bork, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor (presumably) and Roberts were isolated anomalies, while Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer were the norm.
The problem seems more with the way you calculate averages.
Regards,
Shodan
The Democrats were not as afraid of their base as the Republicans currently are of theirs. The Republicans in Congress are all afraid of challenges from their right, not their left. The Democrats’ base was never as strident or rigid as the right wing is right now.
Limiting the consideration to SC justices, this is true. But those are only a small subset of the appointments.
Which does nothing to explain 52-48 on Samuel Alito, who is relatively unassuming as justices go, though admittedly conservative.
Face it: the Democrats got there firstest with the mostest on this particular method of demagoguery. This isn’t the first chance the Republicans had (see Ginsburg, Breyer) for acting in kind, and they eschewed doing so previously. So you cannot simply point your fingers at this and say: it’s all those stupid wing-pandering Pubbies!
At least be honest intellectually about it. 
No, you are still missing the point I’m making:
Bork and Thomas were aberrations. Until the Bush years, and then all hell broke loose. We’ve had three nominations now this decade, and all have been over-politicized. First Dems did it, now the Pubbies did it.
I feel relatively confident in asserting that the VAST majority of federal bench appointments have gone smoothly over the last three decades. There were a couple of notable exceptions (one of which is why Sen. Sessions is on the Judiciary Committee :D). So if we expand the set to the whole shebang, it doesn’t make it any less so.
Including the bulk of Clinton’s nominees (more than “a couple”). When Jesse Helms was the chair, he routinely prevented even hearings for them.
This is one the Dems should have fought harder to defeat (I think).
Alito is a bit further right than just a conservative.
I guess it depends if we think the Senate should rubber stamp any judicial nomination as long as the candidate is on paper qualified or if the Senators can demand some ideological balance to the court. Remember in this case we were replacing the moderate but right-leaning Sandra Day O’Connor with someone a lot further to the right.
The President should be given the benefit of the doubt. Nominating SCOTUS justices is a perk of the office and if “your side” (whatever it may be) is in then you get your guy/gal on the bench. However, if the proposed justice is seriously skewed in ideology as to be so wholly in one camp or the other I am not sure the other side just has to take it. Isn’t it part of the checks-and-balances of government to see that one person cannot just install whoever they want (as long as they have some minimum of experience on paper) regardless of anything else? Each side is meant to balance the extremes of the other…in theory.
When did this notion that the Supremes should be somehow “apolitical” (by whatever self-serving definition you wish) or unaffected by the real world, or by any concept other than the letter of the law, get started, anyway? When has it ever been true?
If that standard was in place, Justice Thurgood Marshall would never have been on the Court.
Nor would the Court have Justice Scalia on it, and even though I am not a fan of his jurisprudence, I think the Court would be lessened by not having him there.
The Court NEEDS people who represent more extreme viewpoints on it. If all it is is a group of centrists, it will never have any reason or inclination to do anything other than muddle through the middle. Brown v Board of Ed. is not the result of centrists splitting hairs.