One of the points I think have been overlooked in the argument over judicial appointment filibusters is just how seldom filibusters have been used. Democrats are always claiming that Republicans do the same thing, and have blocked judges that they thought were "outside the mainstream." Yet the facts don't support this claim.
In the entire 20th Century, only one federal court nomination was filibustered: Justice Abe Fortas's nomination to be Chief Justice in 1968. Yes, the Republicans indeed did do this, but the situation was extreme: not only was this a Chief Justice appointment, in 19-flipping-68, to a Court that was already heavily liberal, but it was made by a highly unpopular lame duck president in the middle of a presidential election campaign -- one that the Democrats were expected to lose (and did).
The fact that Justice Fortas was later shown to be ethically challenged didn't help either. He withdrew his name as Chief Justice when it came out that had he accepted a $15,000 speaking fee while sitting on the Court (which just wasn't done). Shortly thereafter, amid accusations Fortas had accepted another $20,000 from a financier who was facing federal charges, he resigned as Associate Justice in disgrace. Yet this is the lone poster boy for the Democrat's filibuster strategy.
Today, the Democrats are filibustering twelve appeals court appointments, which is 12 times the number filibustered in the entire history of the Republic preceding. Claiming that this is business-as-usual doesn't pass the laugh test. The Republicans have, with one exception, given every Democrat appointee the basic courtesy of an up-or down vote. In nearly all cases, qualified Democrat appointments are approved overwhelmingly. If anything, the only precent for the Democrat behavior is previous Democrat behavior.
Consider: When Bill Clinton appointed the ultra-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Supreme Court, she was approved 97-3. Contrast this with the Democrat treatment of Justice Thomas and Judge Bork, or the 12 hostage judges currently being blocked.
The Republic went for 215 years with only one judicial filibuster. All of a sudden there are twelve such ongoing. Far from being a "time-honored right of the minority", it's simply an abuse of the Senate rules. Somebody needs to make the point of order and end this aberration.
If these 12 are really "outside the mainstream" as the Democrats claim, they'll lose the confirmation vote -- by any reasonable definition of mainstream in a multiparty state.
UPDATE: Patterico finds a particularly noxious example of anti-historical nonsense in the LA Times.