Asking me to make your argument? It's pointless regardless. Let's assume there were a couple. So what? Why do you think Bush nominees have not "backed out"? Why do you think those Bush nominees who "backed out" were not SCOTUS level?
I have the lists which compare Clinton and W side by side, who waited, who left, who was flushed... Why do you continue to ask these questions? Why don't you respond to previous questions? What's the point of all of this if you are fixated on ideas such as flexible/living government? This has absolutely nothing to do with slowing welcoming ourselves back into the club. Liberals/minority are imposing their desires through activist judges who strike down laws and impose new ones. If people have no say over the control of their government the term is tyranny. The Constitution defines the powers of both Congress and the judiciary, educate yourself. The courts are changing the Constitution without consideration of the amendment process and Congress is defying the Constitution. If you learned how the rules worked you would not support a liberal position, unless you supported liberal values.
The fact is, some judges are always washed out; some are always denied (very few); and most are confirmed. To act like because we haven't gotten 100% of all judges at all times is unusal is just silly, and I think you know it.
I repeat what I keep trying to tell you and everyone else about this "deal": it's irrelevant what the Dems do. We got our judges confirmed; we'll get the next batch confirmed; and when they finally filibuster, or attempt to, we'll defeat that BECAUSE the "moderates" have been given their cover.