So, what is the difference, or is there none with each man to be scrap-heaped?
The argument has superficial appeal. However, in two instances, voters will decide and any error can be undone in a subsequent election.
In the other a man intent upon undoing Roe v. Wade is seeking a life-time appointment by a bunch of politicized supporters. Politicians of questionable merit in two separate camps seem figuratively at one-another's throat over the nomination and over Trump. Where Trump is the issue, the question will again face an electorate. Kavanaugh never has been elected to anything whatsoever over his lifetime, yet, to the detriment of the nation, he stands to step into a lifetime of mischief opportunity. Apples and oranges, which is why The Federalist argument disingenuously ignores the key difference.
The opposition party choices against O'Rourke and Ellison are so distastefully Dominionist that any alternative to Ted Cruz and to Doug Wardlow appeals to rational secular humanist minds. To see Cruz voted out, Wardlow soundly rejected by public vote, would be great. It might not shake out that way, but it would be possible.
This Kavanaugh Kabuki theater stuff is offensive because the public has no voice; none whatsoever. It is watch and cringe. Something is wrong with that. Conservatives might disagree, since they really in truth distrust the popular vote and spend greatly to propagandize the public their way and to propose disenfranchisement hurdles.
That too great a public segment falls for the propaganda barrage is a fault of individuals in aggregation, but it is a better system than the Senators we have in DC dancing their thing. It would make as much sense to decide the Kavanaugh appointment by Feinstein and Grassley having a best of three games bowling match. As things stand, if, as is likely from Senate nose counting, Kavanaugh gets elevated above his competence level, there exists only one sound political option for those in favor of reproductive choice and overturning of Hobby Lobby and Citizens United. That option would require election outcomes over a spectrum of venues, outcomes which are highly unlikely, since multiple offices would need to be changed.
The Dominionists want their three guys. They need to be frustrated, for the good of continuing to have a decent nation where far, far, far too many do not want a Christian Soldier turn to "biblical law" or any other such gross stupidity, and they will at least have their vote.
I hold as much a vote on Kavanaugh as I had on the other dreadful bastards, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and the biggest snake, the Citizens United boffo himself, Mr. Justice Roberts. That is a major difference, so let us for a change be honest about things.
Bottom line, there is wisdom to imposing a mandatory single ten year term for Supreme Court Justices, Thomas having been there too long and being the poster child on for-life appointments being unwise. The security to judge would be identical but for a fixed term. To avoid any argument that Justices could be turned out to endure poverty and scorn, let them have the same salary for life but get their seats into play in some staggered way that new blood can be a factor without having to wait for old blood to choose to step down or to croak.
It would require a Constitutional Amendment to change the judiciary, [UPDATE: as to tenure, not as to number] but just think how dangerously young Roberts
Last, demonizing Anita Hill was wrong, the likelihood that Christine Blasey Ford will be dragged over the rocks is a near certainty, and Karen Monahan apparently is not having a joyous time these days. That is wrong. "Believe the accuser," that is extreme and most folks see it as that, but accordomg the accuser a right to state a claim describing a situation without uncivil consequences must be the rule; else the coming forward with valid claims will be stifled as has been the case over most of the past. There needs to be an openness to things being sounded out in a civil non-recriminatory manner. Even when emotionally charged factors are at play.