If there is a common argument with no historical basis being endlessly recycled by conservative hacks, it’s going to find its way to Megan McArdle eventually:
Although Democratic claims that he was extreme based on his extensive record of public comments sure look implausible based on his post-judicial career! pic.twitter.com/R0Tx8oVUe0— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) September 17, 2019
And, once again, note than when Bork was rejected Reagan got a more moderate conservative confirmed. When Fortas was filibustered to death, the nomination went from LBJ to Nixon. The Fortas filibuster, not the Bork vote, is the real precedent for Garland— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) September 17, 2019
There was nothing norm-shattering about the Bork nomination losing on an up-or-down vote. Nothing. It wasn’t even constitutional hardball like the Fortas and Garland nominations. I mean, the Reconstruction Congress eliminated two Supreme Court vacancies to prevent Johnson from filling them! The idea that is was a radical break with precedent for the Senate to defeat a candidate because of his extensive history of expressing extreme views and then unanimously confirming a somewhat more moderate but still very conservative nominee is the silliest ahistorical nonsense.
The more recent version of this is “it was absolutely outrageous that Democrats passed the health care plan Obama ran on with a House majority and Senate supermajority.”