If, as anticipated, New Haven Corporation Counsel Victor Bolden is confirmed a U.S. District Court judge by a vote of the majority of the lame-duck Senate after the November election, he will owe his confirmation to a major change last year in a centuries-old Senate tradition.

Mr. Bolden's nomination was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 10-8, party-line vote on Sept. 18, clearing the way for his approval by the entire Senate, again by an expected party-line, majority-rules vote, in November.

But until late last year, nominees like Mr. Bolden, whose appointment was opposed by the Judiciary Committee's powerful Republican ranking member, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, would have been doomed. He would not have survived the rule that federal judicial nominees and executive office appointees had to be approved by a 60-vote, so-called "super majority" to break a filibuster. This rule had effectively blocked dozens of executive appointments made by President Obama since he took office in 2009.

But in November, an exasperated majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, exercised what is known as the "nuclear option" of allowing the super majority rule on appointees to be eliminated by a simple majority of the Senate and thereby killing a revered tradition in this tradition-bound body.

For more than two centuries, the Senate had "prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world," The Washington Post reported at the time.

The Republican minority cried foul and vowed vengeance when they're next in the majority, which could be as soon as next January. But actually, as we've noted before, the Republicans brought this upon themselves. When Sen. Reid launched his nuclear option, the minority had blocked 79 Obama appointments, according to the independent Congressional Research Service. This compares somewhat unfavorably with the figure for all other presidents before Mr. Obama, a combined, grand total of 68.

While Mr. Bolden's final confirmation by the lame-duck majority is predicted, it is still expected to attract strong partisan opposition. Much of the opposition is based upon a law review article by Mr. Bolden that argued, "Judges should tip the scale on behalf of demographic groups" in certain situations. He sought to defend that position two decades later in representing New Haven against white firefighters who complained that the city, in an effort to add racial diversity to the department's leadership ranks, had thrown out a promotion test for lieutenant and captain positions because no minorities had passed it. The Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, chose not to tip the scale and the white firefighters won, getting their promotions.

In Mr. Bolden's defense, Sen. Richard Blumenthal argued the law review article cited by Republicans was written 24 years ago, when Mr. Bolden, then 25, was an inexperienced young man fresh out of law school and beginning a career in which he has served as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and in private practice.

Mr. Blumenthal noted Mr. Bolden had "passionately" defended New Haven in the firefighter suit but just as passionately implemented the court's decision against the city. He also pointed out Mr. Bolden had told the Judiciary Committee he would be a neutral arbiter if confirmed as a judge.

Mr. Bolden may turn out to be as liberal as Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas are conservative, to name two of scores of judicial appointees who reflect the ideology of the presidents who choose them. This is a president's right, whether the opposition likes it or not. Short of evidence that the appointee is not qualified for the job, the Senate should respect that right.

In abusing its ability to filibuster nominations, the Republicans refused to acknowledge that right, as did Democrats in the past, if to a lesser extent. So now the majority rules, which is not such a terrible thing. At least it allows something to get done in Washington.