This is SOP with plenty of precedent and history. What the Dems are doing, filibustering appellate judicial nominees, is without precedent. Essentially, they are saying you need 60 votes to confirm an appointment and not a mere majority as has always been the case when voted upon on the floor of the Senate. This is not about statistics but precedence.
I agree. It is about adhering to the Constitutional balance of powers between the president and the Senate, and it is about adhering to basic parliamentary practice where, once informed, a participant becomes willing to vote.
One almost has to wonder if Bush can appoint judges in lieu of any *positive* confirmation from the Senate. After all, they merely get to advise & consent. If they refuse to address the issue via parlimentary tactics, then they are voluntarily abdicating their oversight priviledges ie it's an implicit confirmation. As you state, the Repubs *affirmatively* denied Clinton's appointments, which is a completely different matter.