An insane number of appointments were blocked throughout the period when Republicans where in the minority. Of course the majority makes the difference, but Republican obstructionism is constant. The point is that there's no appeasing them, even with shitty moderates like Garland. Obama could've appointed Mumia Abu Jamal and the outcome would've been the same. Except if he appointed Mumia, he might've gotten some popular activist support putting pressure on the GOP.
Yea and Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster for less than SC nomination. So now you can't block as the minority, and honestly I disagree with the filibuster in principle so I'm happy to see it go.
If Dems had 50 Senate seats during Merrick Garlands nomination, they would have gotten rid of the filibuster for Garland also, especially after they lost the election.
The point is that I'm not opposed to obstruction. Infact I think obstructing any major legislation and terrible SC nominee is the only option the dems have. But they have to do it in a way that makes sense.
For SC, if Trump nominates Scalia jr. than drag him thorough a long vetting process, point out how terrible he is, and when McConnell wants to force a vote, filibuster. He will either back down or nuke the filibuster, either way there is little to lose.
For major legislation, just follow the GOP ACA strategy. Water it down as much as you can by initially playing ball incase they can use something like reconciliation to get it through, then filibuster. I doubt McConnell will nuke that filibuster because it protects him for the large fringe GOP house that Ryan can't control.
The cabinet is not that big of a deal. Sure, primary any dem that dares vote for Sessions, otherwise it's nothing to get bent out of shape about. Obama's cabinet received bipartisan support and we don't have the votes to block anyone.