> Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments.

Which lead to Republican senators using another procedural technique (refusing unanimous consent) to slow down appointments.[1] This means appointments were delayed for days, and even weeks, after which time the same obstructing senators often voted for the appointee anyways.

It's disingenuous to claim that appointments would go through scot free after Reid altered Senate procedures.

1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/senate-filibuster-r...

There is no difference between refusing unanimous consent and a filibuster. Reid just changed the cloture requirement to 51 from 60.

Ironically, the fact they changed the rules speaks against your claim that Obama could easily instate who he wanted. In fact, from the article you posted, it gives a graph that shows that more filibusters have been filed in the previous three senates than have been in recent history.

This [1] shows a breakdown that includes filibusters of nominations.

To further refute your point, the appointment relevant to the discussion, Wheeler, assumed office after the rule change[2].

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/se...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler

It's not just filibusters, even. Senators can also issue "secret" holds. At one point, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) put a hold on every single nominee simultaneously until some pork was added to a defense spending bill.

These holds have been common practice and they are very rarely publicized.