A reader wrote:

I'd agree that ending this tradition is not in the people's interest- though I'm not convinved that the democrats method of permanently blocking all conservative nominee's is either.

Actually, the filibuster is a tactic not recent in use.  While it is true on the surface that some 31% of Bush's judicial candidates have been blocked (vs a still-high 24% under Clinton), nearly all Bush candidates have made it to hearings and/or votes, while nearly 60 Clinton noms were blocked from even getting that far (which don't count into that 24%).

So considering they blocked 1 out of every 4 Clinton noms - and Clinton was known for picking far more centrist judges than Bush - I don't see how the Repubs can claim it's a Democrat method.

The fact is that the filibuster was put in place to insure a level of power separation when both the congress and the president is controlled by a single party.  The Founding Fathers greatly disapproved of the idea of any one sect of the people running completely out of control over the entire country, so methods were put in place to make it more difficult to pass things via the Senate than having a simple majority.