You have to hand it to Bush: If he can't get what he wants by playing by the rules, he'll just make up a batch of new ones.
President Bush, faced with a month-long Democratic filibuster that is blocking one of his top-priority judicial nominations, called on the Senate yesterday to outlaw such tactics and require "timely" votes on all judicial nominees.
Unlike Bush, I don't see that any further moves to enhance the President's power at the expense of our legislature are warranted. Still, I might be tempted to go along with this suggestion, with one proviso: It takes effect at the beginning of the next presidential term. While I'm confident that president will be a Democrat, it'd still (hopefully) motivate Bush to know that his ability to stack the courts with conservative activists is dependent on fostering goodwill--you know, bipartisanship.
Update: Nathan Newman adds:
[J]udge confirmations merit super-majority agreement more than any other decision by the Senate.
Why? Because it can't be reversed if the Senate makes a mistake. When Congress passes bad legislation, they can always pass another law to correct the problem. But there is no such simple option with judges, except for impeachment which requires a two-thirds vote and a process that is far harsher on their object than a [tough] confirmation process.
...Lastly, the likely result of such mutually assurred destruction of nominees is the appointment of what all sides claim to want, judicially restrained judges who are unlikely to overrule laws near and dear to either side. ...[O]n most issues judges will likely get the most mileage in saying, it's not my job to second-guess you Senators, except on the broad consensus of individual rights such as free speech.