This is great news - as many commentators have noted, the fight over the judiciary is one where Republicans should always win, given that most of the American populace agrees with the Republican view of the Judiciary: a fundamentally re-active branch of government that is in place as a sort of last line of defense, not as a super-legislature that is unelected. We absolutely need to work these nominations for all they are worth.
 

Toneman: It probably is true that most Americans rightly view the role of the Judiciary as fundamentally reactive. Whether they agree with you that this is a "Republican view," or whether they agree with you on what should be defended--e.g., individual rights or states' rights--is less clear.

What we do know, however, is that a super-majority of Americans do not identify themselves as Republican. Given this fact, "always" seems a bit strong. See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/ April%20Dailies/Partisan%20Trends.htm
 

While always is a strong word, the evidence is overwhelming that where judges are the issue, Republicans/Conservatives win. Senator Daschle lost his majority leader post in part because of his opposition to President Bush's judicial nominees. Another example, in judicial retention elections, how often do you hear of a judge losing for being too conservative? While it has happen for a judge being too liberal.

Further, Democrats in the Senate who are not of the far left wing of the party seem less willing to fight over judges because they know it is not a good issue for them. If it was not for the pressure\influence\control of the leadership and party by the extreme left of the Democrat party -- who rightly sees the court as their only chance to enact their leftist socialist and unpopular agenda -- they would probably not fight at all.