The Radical Destructionists...

...can be expected to use the Schiavo case as yet another wedge in their campaign to usurp the rule of law and destroy our constitutional form of government via their attack on the court system whose design is derived from the Constitution itself.

Herman Schwartz' primer on the history of judicial appointments for The American Prospect is thus timely and essential. He writes...

With the notable exceptions of the 1968 Fortas nomination and a failed Republican filibuster of H. Lee Sarokin in 1994, neither party filibustered the other's judicial nominations, and virtually all nominees received a hearing unless they were sent up after the presidential nominating conventions.

All this changed in 1996. Rather than openly challenge President Clinton's nominees on the floor, Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton's appeals-court nominees were denied hearings....Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote.

Got that? 65 federal judicial appointments that they wouldn't even talk about. Schwartz warns against the ongoing campaign to paint the Democratic Senate as outrageous judicial obstructionists...

In light of the ferocity with which Republicans stonewalled Clinton's nominees, Frist's entire case folds; the 10 nominees filibustered by Democrats hardly compare to the 65 Clinton nominees denied a vote by the Republicans' under-the-radar procedural maneuvers.

Go read the whole thing and arm yourself for battle.