Posted by 79 at 2:32pm Dec 4 '13"The move ["nuclear option"] reflects general gloom at the prospect of getting anything significant done before the next electoral cycle. Because there are no big bills likely to pass Congress, there is little incentive to keep things civil. Senate Democrats would rather get some people they approve of into important positions.
There is also an important payoff for making the change now. There are close to 100 vacancies in the federal judiciary to be filled. That number is partly coincidence: presidents have limited control over when judges die, retire or get promoted. But it also reflects the fact that Republicans have been more active in blocking the president's judicial nominees than Democrats were when Republicans last controlled the White House. The success rate for nominees under George W. Bush was 91%. Under Barack Obama it has fallen to 76% - and those numbers do not reflect the amount of time nominees have had to wait before confirmation.
...
Preventing presidential nominees from taking up their positions in government agencies has become a favourite way for Republican senators to put leg-irons on the president's policies. This tactic has been successful in preventing the Federal Labor Relations Authority from doing anything; it has also temporarily denied agencies, from the Federal Housing Finance Agency to the CIA, of confirmed heads, without whom they may drift along in an ineffectual way that pleases some small-government types. Such blocking often bears no relation to whether the nominee is qualified. Chuck Hagel...Though this [blocking nominees through filibuster] is not new, it has become much more common under Mr Obama. Between 1949 and Mr Obama taking office, 68 nominees had been blocked by the Senate. Since January 2009, 79 have been.
-The Economist, "Dropping The Bomb", Nov 30th, pg 30. emphasis added.
there's some facts for you. the GOP, under Obama, has been more obstructionist concerning presidential nominees than any Senate in history.
for your perusal: - 79