Time for new rules on judges.

Nearly all agree today that the U.S. judicial nomination process is broken.

A few years ago, Democrats complained bitterly about the difficulties that President Clinton faced in confirming judges; now Republicans cite "inexcusable" delays faced by Bush nominees. Today's long battles over judges make Robert Bork's ugly Supreme Court confirmation fight pale in comparison.

Bush's clear-cut win over Senator John Kerry has not solved the problem. Democrats say that nothing has changed, that they will continue filibustering to block judicial nominees whose politics are out of their "mainstream."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has discussed changing Senate rules to gradually reduce the number of votes required to end a filibuster, so that nominees would eventually proceed to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Others are pushing for an even more dramatic solution, the so-called nuclear option, in which the presiding officer of the Senate would rule that filibusters against judicial nominees violate the separation of powers and are therefore un-Constitutional.

Democrats are threatening a Senate shutdown if the rules change. But without some change, even longer and more bitter confirmation fights will await them when they retake the Presidency.

Consider this: The confirmation rate for Presidential nominees to federal appeals courts has fallen over the last 30 years from 93 percent under President Carter, to 89 percent under President Reagan, to 78 percent under George H. W. Bush, to 74 percent under Clinton, and now to 69 percent under President Bush.

The length of time required to confirm has bloated too. During the Carter, Reagan, and first Bush administrations, the interval from nomination to confirmation ...