How much Repub. obstructionism expected for Sup. Crt. nominee?

[Mr. Morden]

One thing to consider are the vulnerable blue state GOP senators up to reelection. They may need a way to vote to confirm or vote to end the filibuster in order to not be branded an obstructionist at home.

Will this one issue blow up so big that it'll actually tip multiple Senate races though?  I'm skeptical.  Aside from Kirk in Illinois, are there any incumbent GOP Senators from states that are so overwhelmingly Democratic that the issue will cut strongly against them?  I'm not convinced it'll be a giant loser in, say, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.  Maybe it will, but I'm not sure.

[Mr. Morden]

Anyway, my question is: Let's say the GOP does block any Obama appointment this year, and that Hillary Clinton is elected in November, while the GOP retains a narrow majority in the Senate.  What happens next?

Does the Senate give in and approve Obama's pick in the lame duck session?  Does Clinton re-appoint Obama's choice in 2017, or go with someone else?  And does the Senate then approve him/her, or continue to obstruct?

[Mr. Morden]

The incidents you name are not Supreme Court nomination controversies.  But this is one:  the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings in 1991.

The allegations of sexual harassment dominated the national consciousness.  High school teachers canceled their lesson plans and we just went from class to class watching the hearings on TV.  There were few women in Congress at the time and women across the country were outraged over the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee's terrible treatment of Anita Hill.  The senior senator of my home state, Patty Murray, was serving in the state legislature at the time and became so furious watching the hearings she decided to run for the U.S. Senate.  Then-Rep. Barbara Boxer grew similarly incensed when she was part of a group of Democratic House women who attempted to storm a Senate meeting to discuss hearings for Anita Hill.  They were greeted with a closed door and told "no one ever gets in here."  The 1992 elections became known as "The Year of the Woman" because:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/WIC/Historical-Essays/Assembling-Amplifying-Ascending/Women-Decade/

Left unmentioned was that almost all of these newly elected women to Congress were Democrats.  They became known as the "Anita Hill Class."  The gains filtered down to the state and local level as well.  While there were other factors behind the historic gains women made that year (which have not been replicated since), the hearings were certainly an important part of it.

So a Supreme Court nomination controversy can have an effect on an election.  I've seen it happen.

Yes, but in that case, the controversy wasn't about the Supreme Court per se.  It was about sexual harassment, women in the workplace, etc.  Things that ordinary people can relate to.  "Obstructionism", on the other hand, is too far removed from most people's regular lives for them to care.