I fail to understand how Obama's getting this nominee through entails that it was unfair for Bush not to get every single nominee through. Do you really mean to say that the candidates are exactly the same and that the process has favored Obama in some illegitimate way? Really?

On this occasion, Obama got a Supreme Court justice through; on that occasion, Bush didn't. So what? Bush had no problems pushing through Supreme Court nominees, he just didn't get that one. Conversely, Obama has hardly had all his nominees rubberstamped. Bush was able to push through a really expansive program (vastly expensive war in Iraq, giant entitlement increases, giant tax cuts for the wealthy, money funneled directly from government to churches, the PATRIOT act, etc.) and Obama has had really significant opposition that has prevented most of his agenda from going anywhere. It is hardly as though some illegitimate force was preventing Bush from getting everything he wanted, or is allowing Obama to occasionally win single battles on occasion. Presidents win some and lose some. I find the suggestion very odd that Obama has somehow used wrong or illegal means to get a Supreme Court justice through. Is it fascist for the President to nominate people to the Supreme Court? Is it only fascist when they are Democrats?

I don't see anything to suggest that this objection isn't just the lowest-hanging fruit for people who simply can't accept anyone being nominated to the Supreme Court if they aren't basically Republican, or if the president is a Democrat or "isn't one of us."