Senate Democrats were mulling a filibuster to block the nomination of Miguel Estrada, a constitutional lawyer, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit as debate proceeded on the matter in the Senate yesterday. The Democrats believe they will be doing the public a service by blocking Mr. Estrada’s nomination without allowing it to go to a straight up-or-down vote. Yet when the tables were turned during the last years of the Clinton administration, it was Democratic senators who were complaining.

Back then, the judicial nominations of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon were held up by Republicans. Of Mr. Paez, John Podesta, chief of staff in the Clinton White House, told NBC News, “They owe him a vote. He deserves a vote, and they should have the courage to go ahead — if they want to vote against him, they should go ahead and — and vote against him. But he should get an up or down vote.” Mr. Clinton echoed this sentiment in his 1998 State of the Union address: “Heed this plea and vote on the highly qualified judicial nominees before you, up or down.” A spokesperson for Senator Boxer said, “These are two extremely qualified candidates, and they deserve a vote.” Senator Schumer said the long delays for Mr. Paez and Ms. Berzon made a “mockery of the Constitution.”

“Partisan and narrow ideological efforts to impose political litmus tests on judicial nominees to shut down the judiciary have to stop,” Senator Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, complained in 1998.

Mr. Estrada has been waiting for a vote since May 9, 2001. A filibuster to stop a judicial appointment is a procedural move that has yet to be used in the Senate. If the Democrats who stand in the way of Mr. Estrada’s vote are true to their words, they will follow Mr. Clinton’s advice, drop the filibuster threat, and let the Senate vote, up or down.