The new judicial nominees

The Demos are up in arms about President Bush's renomination of several candidates who were stalled the last time around. I can appreciate why they are so upset. These are candidates who have made it clear that they will not be activist judges who use the bench as if it were some non-elected legislative office. PalmTree Pundit has gone back to the source, and nicely pointed out why the Democrats, who have the bad luck to be in the minority right now, should just grin and bear it, instead of preventing proper majority rule:

We're learning about the writing of the US Constitution in our history study right now, and yesterday we talked about the 3 branches of government and why our founding fathers set it up that way. I fail to see how refusing to allow a vote on a president's judicial nominees fulfills the job of the legislative branch. It seems to me that Sen. Cornyn has it right:

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and member of the Judiciary Committee, said that for 200 years, judges have passed on a straight majority vote, by which all of the filibustered nominees would be confirmed. 'It would make no sense to require Republicans to be elected by a 60 percent vote, while only requiring 51 percent of Democrats,' he said. 'The Senate should reject the double standard that Democrats have created for confirming President Bush's nominees and restore our constitutional and traditional standards.'