Since Garland didn't even get to a vote, it wasn't necessary to Kavanaugh (or Bork) him to the same degree. Abe Fortus got denied a vote via filibuster in '68, so you could say that Merrick Garland was Fortused.
But a filibuster is an accepted way for the minority to fight back. That's not the same thing as making up a new rule and denying a vote because it's a lame duck year. To equate the two is just strained logic at best.
