Republicans helped take down Bork. Why aren't they going up now...

against *'s nominees? Why hasn't any Republican voted against a single * nominee but a few voted down Bork?

by the way, did any Democrat ever vote against any of Clinton's nominations?

court nominations are now more politicized than they were in 1986.

The Bork, Douglas Ginsberg and (to a lesser extent) C. Thomas situations were instrumental in evolving the politics of judicial appointments. It was largely Democrats who lead the way into making court mominations into a more-partisan battleground. I am not sure whether this is a good or bad thing on the whole. It is certainly a bad thing to the extent that Republicans control congress.

During the 1980's and early 90's I considered the increasing partisan nature of appointments to be a bad thing because I was worried that Republicans might control congress at some point. This has come to pass.

Further explanation on Thomas: I don't consider the issues raised in those hearings to be entirely partisan. There was certainly some evidence of sexual harrassment there, and sexual harrassment should not be considered as a partisan issue. That said, reflecting on the 1990s as a whole, it seems that the Democratic Party is more tolerant of sexual harrassment (and near occasions therof) when the alleged harrasser is a Republican rather than a Democrat. That is partisan politics.

RW talking point about dem opposition - 'they're Borking the nominee'

Weicker (R-CT), Packwood (R-OR), Specter (R-PA), Chafee (R-RI), Stafford (R-VT) and Warner (R-VA) all voted against Bork.