In a stark contrast to today's fiercely partisan battles over judicial appointments, there once was a time when the confirmation of federal judges didn't resemble a partisan warfare. This sentiment is reflected poignantly in the analysis conducted by Dr. Adam Feldman, noting a significant difference in the confirmation process over the years.

During George W. Bush’s presidency, federal court nominees were confirmed with an average margin of 72 votes, according to Dr. Feldman's study which covered 176 nominations. This number symbolizes a period when bipartisan cooperation in judicial confirmations was more common than not. It's a sharp departure from the current political climate where President Biden’s nominees have seen an average margin of merely 15.6 votes across 215 confirmations.

This shift highlights a significant transformation in how judicial appointments are viewed and handled in the Senate. The confirmation process, once a procedure based on the professional qualifications and legal acumen of the nominees, has increasingly become a field of political jousting, with nominees often serving as pawns in a larger partisan game.

The implications of this shift are profound, impacting not only the efficiency and speed at which our judicial system is replenished but potentially the very impartiality and quality of justice delivered. The growing partisan divide may also deter highly qualified candidates from seeking judicial appointments, fearing the contentious and highly politicized confirmation process.

This analysis invites us to reflect on the changes in the political landscape and consider the long-term impacts of such partisanship on our legal systems and broader society. It beckons a question - can we return to a more cooperative and less divisive approach in confirming federal judges, or has the era of bipartisan judicial confirmations been relegated to the pages of history?

As we ponder this, the nostalgia for a less partisan era becomes more than just longing for simplicity—it's a call to strive for a judiciary that embodies fairness and justice, untainted by political allegiance.