I know it's annoying when people use silly things like facts, but indulge me....
Since the founding of our Republic, 20% of Supreme Court nominees have been rejected, many without facing a full vote. The Republicans have used the tactic as often as Democrats, most recently to block Clinton-era nominees. And President Bush has enjoyed a success rate of over 95% in getting nominees approved. That's higher than Clinton, Bush I and Reagan.
First of all, appellate court nominees are the relevant judgeships here. Mixing the lower court in with them is twisting the facts. Second of all and most importantly, other judges that did not get approved, did not get out of the justice commitee. The majority in the senate has the most votes on the commitee and therefore can bottle up nominations. Clintons nominees that did not get a vote, were rejected in commitee, by the majority of the people on that commitee. What is going on here is totally different. These folks are all approved by the commitee and than are not getting a vote on the floor because of the Democratic party misrepresenting the advise and consent clause of the constitution. So, you seee the %, or number of nominees approved is irrelavent to the discussion we are having here. Please brush up on your facts before participating. I know it is annoying when silly folks insist on what is said actually be relevant to the discussion, but hey...I'm a stickler...