You're right that the current Congresses have been extraordinary in their dysfunction, but a little late on your timeline for Supreme Court appointment battles:

You're right that the current Congresses have been extraordinary in their dysfunction, but a little late on your timeline for Supreme Court appointment battles: Reagan's Bork was shot down 42-58, GHWB's Thomas was confirmed 52-48, with both debates waged in the media. Obviously I'm aware of Bork and Thomas but they are irrelevant to my point. My point is that, in general, we usually confirmed justices by a large margin. That hasn't happened for 3 appointments in a row. 2 Exceptions in the last few decades doesn't make my point any less valid. In the times of 90-vote confirmations, horse-trading of variegated appointees just went on behind closed doors. Now that things are so fractured, a president can only get away with nominating a slate of judges all partially partisan in the same direction. The idea that a president has to nominate a partisan set of judges is not correct. All of GW's nomiations were conservative. It wouldn't be the constitution being amended anyway, just Senate procedural rules, but Harry Reid is never going to go for that. No, I meant what I said when I called it a constitution amendment. 3/5 to confirm a justice should be in the Constitution. The founders failed to foresee how politicized the Court would become.