Thumbs down, filibustering

At is that time in a president's term to appoint judicial nominees. And, like always, the opposing party is planning on filibustering these candidates. This goes on every time a president submits judicial nominees. This happens so often, I am surprised our judicial system can even run properly. \nPresident Bush is submitting 12 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals and eight nominees for the U.S. district courts. Out of these nominees, six will take seats in one of the appellate courts, and six will be seated in the district courts. That means that in the United States, there are 12 courts that do not have sitting judges. This is deplorable for a country that says it is a just nation. How can there be justice when these court openings are never filled?\nThis is why President Bush and the Republican members of Congress are asking for an "up or down" vote on these nominees. However, the Democrats will not give the Senate that option. They will use their 44 seats in the Senate to filibuster those nominees until Bush leaves office or until he puts up more "moderate" judges. So basically, we might not have 12 benches filled for a very long time. This would only increase the backlog of cases these courts should be deciding. Not only does this increase backlog, but it also reduces the prestige of the position. Why would a person want to wait for years to hear of his or her appointment? Would you like to wait for years for a company to inform you of whether you got a job? This is atrocious.\nThe use of the filibuster in these cases is not about the nominees. It's about power. The Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate, so the only way for them to have any power is to filibuster bills they do not like. The other reason the Democrats do this is revenge. The Republicans did the same thing to Democratic nominees during the Clinton era. And at that time, the Democrats also called for an up or down vote on their nominees. So an eye for an eye is better than working for justice and stability within our judicial system and for a better future in the United States.\nAll of this fighting between the two parties has led Chief Justice William Rehnquist to criticize both Republicans and Democrats for their inability to get nominees passed in a reasonable time period. \nIn his 2002 annual report, Rehnquist wrote, "As I have noted in previous reports, to continue functioning effectively and efficiently, our federal courts must be appropriately staffed. This means that judicial vacancies must be filled in a timely manner with well-qualified candidates." \nThis was his criticism of the Democrats' filibustering Bush's nominees; however, as he stated, this was not the first time he had criticized Congress for its inefficiency in appointing judges, nor will it be his last.\nBasically, why not just have an up or down vote on these nominees? Would it really hurt the ego of either party? In doing so, it would bring respect and justice back to the system. \nBecause appellate and district seats seem to open up frequently, the Democrats do not really have anything to lose. At some point in the future, there will probably be another Democratic president who will have to appoint judges. So bring justice back, bring respect back, and do it quickly.