The Frist For President Option

Well now we're getting to witness a bigtime dispute in the Senate. I think this is something we see more often in the junior side of the congress, but it's always nice to know that the Hon. Sen's can mix it up too.
The stuff I'm seeing in the news tells me, unsurprisingly, that there's little interest in considering the difference (a major one, to me) between when the president nominates someone to serve in the administration and when he nominates someone to serve in the judiciary. These are, or used to be, two separate-but-equal branches of the U.S. Govt. I think there are some among our leaders who don't get that. Or, there are some among our leaders who like to make noise and light and smoke and hope we don't look behind the curtain. But then, the Hon. Tom DeLay is probably not yet evolved as far as most of us. He's certainly no argument for Intelligent Design. There, I finally got a chance to use that one.
So, I have to agree with those who say that the president has the right to appoint his own "employees". They're really our employees, but he's the manager, after a fashion, of our executive branch. I have come to the point where I pretty much assume that anyone the current president nominates is probably unfit for the position, but then that's my opinion of the manager of the executive branch as well. As a sort of philosophical/social/governing principle, the presidents direct employees should be his to choose unless they're well on the road to being certifiable (in the bad sense). Case in point: John Bolton. Not yet certifiable, as far as I can tell. I suspect he's just a few quarts of Kentucky Mash away from rehab, but 'til then, let the president inflict the guy on the UN. His prerogative.
About the judicial branch. The independent judiciary that causes Fox "News" people and others of that ilk to foam at the mouth: the appointees ought not to be the president's to appoint in the same sense as the executive appointees. I even considered advocating getting the judges to appoint the judges. That, I suspect would be replacing like with like pretty much forever. Eventually the judicial branch would be pretty much a fossil. Instead of being populated with, it sometimes seems, fossils. So, let us not tinker with the original modus. Let the president and the senate do the appointing. I think though, that the two other branches, executive and legislative, should be co-equal in staffing the judicial branch.
As to how the senate should rule itself in vetting presidential nominees, I confess I have no clue whatsoever. My preference would be that everybody is always approved by consensus. Actually, by consensus among us all: president, congress, court, and even us day laborers. That won't happen, so let's admit that we need to have a representative system of governance. Let the representatives represent. Wish they'd do a quieter job of it.
A little less posturing, and a little more governing, guys!