Errr, no.
It's not that I want to see appointment simply accomplished - I, too, want worthwhile members to get appointed to the judiciary. However, the major reason why judgeships go unfilled is because there's no consequence to the Senate for not filling appointments. This means that the judiciary itself suffers, and Congress doesn't care because it doesn't affect them, and they profit to their partisan base by being hard-liners on every judicial appointment.
So we give the Senate the chance to make appointments. If they perpetuate their partisan hackery for their own benefit and refuse to compromise on a position then it goes to the President to fill.
It gives the Senate full control over appointments, and only over to the President if they cannot come up with a consensus. That's not outside the line of political thinking, as the reason why the President is both head-of-government and head-of-state is so that the President can take charge during issues in which Congress is at loggerheads. It's also within the realms of checks and balances.
This also takes into account practical realities. For one, no matter which judges get appointed, somebody will object to them. So there's no real way to build up the people's confidence in the judiciary as, no matter what position they hold, their rulings will piss somebody off.
Therefore, I say we just give the Senate a chance to make those appointments, and if they become unable to then it goes to the President.
