[jfengel]

3 appointments in one term is unprecedented.

Especially because of the dubious nature of the first one. The vacancy lasted over a year, because the opposition party refused to vote. This is an enormous shift in power, for purely partisan reasons.

It was not illegal, but it's a complete breakdown of any sense of civil order. It's "fair" in the sense that two can play at that game, but that would lead to a complete logjam of the system.

Had it not been for that, he'd have nominated two members of the Court in a single term. That would be more than most, but not nearly the push of a permanent partisan majority with explicit intent of marginalizing the opposition.

[dllthomas]

> 3 appointments in one term is unprecedented.

This is simply false. For instance, Hoover successfully appointed 3 justices and only served a single term. Taft appointed 6! Harding appointed 4 despite only living 2 years of his term.

"Unprecedented in recent times" is weaselly but accurate. "Unprecedented" gives those who don't know better an inaccurate picture of the past and makes those who do know better wonder what else you're confidently wrong about.

None of that is to say I don't object to the shenanigans - I do.