The GOP's resentment is justified: The reason Democrats refused to allow a vote on 10 of Bush's first-term judicial selections is that they would have lost. A majority of senators certainly would have voted to confirm. If Senate Democrats think these nominees are unqualified or dangerous, they should make that case to their colleagues and the American people. Instead, they've managed to get their way without justifying it.
It's frustrating to see an obstinate minority thwart the will of the Senate--and by implication, the will of the people--to confirm judges. But cutting back this long-prized Senate procedure would be a serious mistake, removing a valuable check on the power of tomorrow's majority as well as today's. It would also expand the power of the president. Neither would be a healthy change for the long run.
If the filibuster is scrapped for a fight over judges, how long will it be until it is junked entirely, leaving the Senate vulnerable to any transient surge of sentiment? Someday, Republicans will be in the minority again, and they'll need to filibuster to prevent the Democrats from running roughshod over them.
...There is a better, if slower, option available to Senate Republicans: Make sure the American people know exactly what the Democrats are doing, and make them pay in the next election. Bush's bold deployment of this issue helped Republicans gain control of the Senate in 2002 and to increase their majority in 2004.