A quick word on this: Bork was voted down in bipartisan fashion b/c his opponents believed, correctly, that he was an ideologue whose ideology was not congenial to theirs. If advice and consent for powerful lifetime positions means anything, it must mean that this is OK. (1/3) https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1319283149126291465

Bork's successor was confirmed, unanimously, by a Senate controlled by the opposite party of the president, in the last year of that president's term. Voting down Bork but confirming a less ideological replacement was a model of divided government working well. (2/3)

Refusing a hearing or vote on Garland on the explicit ground that he is a nominee of the other party is quite significantly different from this, and was without precedent. Unlike the Bork vote, it cannot reasonably be expected to lead to future cooperation or negotiation. (3/3)