You just said it though...Garland was robbed of a hearing and a vote. Bork was denied the seat after a hearing and a vote. He got to make his case and simply just didn't get enough votes, so they see that as being totally fair. That was before my time but I see Bork not getting the seat primarly because of his association with Nixon/Saturday Night Massacre more than his interpretation of the Constitution.
I'm not saying it was incorrect per se to deny Garland a hearing given the circumstances. I don't think Republicans would be out of bounds for doing that even if Bork never happened. But I totally get why they got their panties in a wad over it.