Reid did a lot worse, at least as it related to turning the Senate into another version of the partisan House. Daschle and Lott were partisan, but if you read their books you realize the respect they had for the Senate and how it tempered their actions. Again, when Frist raised the possibility of nuclear option regarding judges because of the Estrada fillibuster etc, (and Reid went ballistic), it was resolved by forming the Gang of 14 to negotiate a settlement. A year later when Reid has the majority and is frustrated by minority filibuster (and supported by the Parliamentarian), he blows up a hundred years of Senate rules and the media loved him for it -- "Reid taking the reins of the Senate" yada yada. Quislings.
As to the horrendous offense inflicted on Garland. That one drives me nuts. Is what happened to Garland anything compared to what the Dems did to Bork? Did they send investigators to his library to find out what books he had checked out (thereby laying groundwork for a Federal law prohibiting the behavior? Did they pay a clerk at Blockbuster to see what movies he was renting (hopefully porn)? Or have a hypocritical demagogue like Teddy Kennedy besmirch his rulings and reputation painting images of back alley abortions and segregated lunch counters?
Or 7 years later lead the political lynching of Clarence Thomas. A sexual predator like Teddy Kennedy who used to prowl the restaurants in DC with my former senior senator looking for young, nubile waitresses to turn into their favorite "waitress sandwich?" Here Chris, sit down, let me throw this one into your lap and climb on -- let's make a grinder! And this guy acts like he's some sort of sexual harassment crusader while a complicit media revels in his hypocrisy.
Did any of that happen to Garland? Why is it that liberal Dems only pull out the Big Boy pants when they get to throw the punches? What happened to Garland was a pure play of power politics. It happens all the time with judicial appointments, albeit not previously with SCOTUS. At the time I was against McConnell doing it -- but that may have been influenced by my belief that it wouldn't really alter anything. But acting like that is the least bit comparable to what Thomas' family, Bork and then Kavanaugh's family were put through is simply not being honest.
As to McConnell's "hypocrisy" regarding rubberstamping judges (over which he probably has a fair amount of influence) -- there have been a half dozen or so not rubberstamped. But, if I can trudge into the world of speculative "whataboutism," do you honestly think Schumer's standard or Nancy's if she led the Senate would be any different? It is the process. Democratic and republican.
The only difference is that were Nancy in charge of confirmations the plea to the Senate caucus would be something like "But we need to confirm this appointment tonight so that we can find out who the President is nominating tomorrow!"