The melodrama playing out in the U.S. Senate over judicial nominations would be merely amusing if the stakes weren’t so high.

“This is about principle, it’s about our constitutional responsibility, it’s about advise and consent,” intoned U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

That sounds good, but this debate is really about political control of a separate branch of government.

While Frist now claims to find the right to an up-or-down vote embedded in the Constitution, he voted to uphold a filibuster of a judicial nominee a mere five years ago. If up-or-down votes are a constitutional mandate, the Senate has been insulting the founding fathers for more than 200 years. Regardless of which party was in control, the Senate has long allowed lone senators to block nominations if nominees came from their states. The Judiciary Committee has often scuttled nominations by failing to schedule a hearing.

Republican senators say they want to ensure that federal judges protect the original intent of the Constitution, but in so doing they have pursued a creative interpretation of the advise-and-consent clause. There are valid arguments for doing away with filibusters – all filibusters. But to impose a ban only in the case of judicial nominations gives away the game. This drastic reversal in how the Senate has handled judicial nominations will further divide Congress and bring its business to a halt.

Are circumstances that dire? The Senate has confirmed 205 of the 215 Bush nominees it has voted on. That exceeds the number approved under the president’s father, in President Clinton’s second term and President Reagan’s first term. There is nothing historic about the current “obstructionism” or the number of vacancies.

Of the 877 sitting federal judges, 501 have been appointed by Republican presidents, according to the Alliance for Justice. Seven of nine Supreme Court justices have been appointed by Republicans. If judicial activism is indeed running amok, then both parties share the blame.

The Senate leadership’s all-or-nothing strategy (otherwise known as the “nuclear option”) is significantly influenced by the fact that a Supreme Court position could pop open soon. Chief Justice William Rehnquist is battling cancer.

But if there is one area where filibusters make the most sense it is in the realm of judicial nominees. The filibuster ensures that lifetime appointments are doled out with deliberation and that the interests of the minority aren’t trampled. Controlling the presidency and both houses of Congress is temporary. Judicial appointments are permanent, and thus should reflect the wishes of a broader political consensus.

If nominees cannot garner 60 votes in the Senate, it’s probably because they are too extreme. Republicans need to take their finger off the nuclear option and try to negotiate a compromise. After all, they won’t always be in the majority.