The power of appointment

The United States Constitution assigns the President the duty to "nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint" necessary government officials that aren't otherwise specified in that document. When examined in the past, it has been assumed that our founders meant for the President's judicial choice to be very likely appointed, unless there is some sort of circumstance that leads the Senate to think the nominee unfit. Acts of criminality, misunderstanding of the law, or any other impediment that might disable the performance of the judicial candidate are all acceptable excuses for refusal of the necessary senatorial consent. Disagreements with the President's choice strictly for reasons of ideological association are not acceptable.\nNonetheless, Miguel Estrada, whom President Bush decided was a proper candidate to the D.C. circuit court nearly two years ago, has faced an endless stalemate in the Senate. Democrats, even after losing their majority to the Republicans in Congress, have effectively blocked Estrada's appointment to the court on grounds that, in essence, equate to dissimilarity in political beliefs.\nIt has been charged that Estrada is under qualified for a position of such importance because he hasn't yet served as a judge. Yet of the 18 nominees to that court since Jimmy Carter, 15 have lacked this same experience. Actually, 43 of the 108 Supreme Court Justices, and eight of the 18 Chief Justices had no judicial experience when appointed!\nA popular argument from Democrats is that Estrada has not provided enough information for them to make an educated decision. Yet, he has so far answered over 100 questions orally and written follow-ups for 25 more. Additionally and voluntarily, Estrada has met with many of them personally to respond to any concerns they may have. Three of President Clinton's judicial nominees answered no more than 20 questions for the Judicial Committee, and one answered only three, yet they were each confirmed to the bench. This should provide ample information for the Senate to make its decision. \nSenate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Schumer has decided instead that Estrada has been uncooperative in answering questions about his past. This may be explained by the line of questioning he's been subjected to, which is unprecedented in such a proceeding. Schumer has even asked Estrada's opinions concerning cases he may have to judge if he's appointed. Answering such questions is prohibited by the American Bar Association. \nA minority of the Senate now chooses to filibuster the issue, even after four Democrats have changed their minds. Estrada only needs a majority from the Senate and currently has 55 votes behind him; however under current rules he needs 60 votes to end a filibuster. This cannot be how the founders of our constitution envisioned this process playing out. In fact, Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist Paper #76 why it is assumed that a negative response from the Senate regarding a judicial appointment should be a rarity. As with other aspects of the Presidency, our Chief Executive would have the incentive of picking a well qualified nominee because the responsibility falls directly and solely onto his shoulders. Should the Judge turn out to be incompetent, the people would wonder how their president could have such faulty judgment. On the other hand, blame for simple consent would be spread among all majority members of the Senate.\nI acknowledge the importance of senatorial consent for such important posts. I understand that the necessity of their permission for judicial appointment acts to prohibit the president from making a serious mistake. However, as both the language of the constitution and 200 years of political practice imply, a minority of a single congressional body should not have the power to trump the President's duty in choosing future judges.