Broder's suggestion that Bork's "bashing" is a "lynching" by the majority, and comparable to the ousting of Bird, simply misses the whole point of what is at issue. The citizens who vote still ride supreme in the minds of elected officials, and there is a limit on what the public will endure from political patronage, even if it costs a seat on the Supreme Court.
Another difference between Bork and Bird, unnoticed by Broker, is that Bird was ousted after the fact, and Bork's confirmation ran into trouble partly before the fact of his confirmation, but after the fact of his own views and history on important social and legal issues. If you will, the public cast its vote on their records, but with Bork, why take a big chance on a very controversial situation, when it is not necessary to do so. There are a host of legal scholars suitable for the Supreme Court--it's just that they're not on the list of political patronage from the White House.