Gotta agree with you. The rules allowed Republicans to block Clinton's nominees and the rules allow Democrats to filibuster Bush nominees.
Nothing in the constitution guarantees a full Senate vote on any judicial nominee.
And, changing the filibuster rule is extremely rash and shortsighted.
Have you read and understood what the editorial said? The title is entirely misleading. The point of the editorial is that the DEMOCRATS are LIEING and PERVERTING the way the approval process is supposed to work.
What does "advise and consent" mean to you? Do you see the irony in overlooking these words in the Constitution in order to allow the filibustering of these nominees to continue, in order that the activist judiciary can continue to read abortion and gay marriage into the Constitution?
Similarly, nothing in the Constitution says the Senate SHALL try impeachments, just that it has the power to do so.
Nothing says the Senate MUST vote on treaties, only that if it does, 2/3rd are required for assent.
I think the only sensible read is that the Senate has a duty in all of these cases, and the duty is not discharged in a refusal to vote.
It is as the GOP has forgotten what it is like to be in the minority - and think they will never be there again.