Good point. Personally, I don't the agree with the idea of eliminating the filibuster on legislation, something which really does have a long and legitimate tradition in the Senate. Using a 60-vote requirement to deny entire slates of qualified Presidential appointees has no legitimate tradition in the Senate, and arguably violates the spirit (if not the letter itself) of the Constitution.
I agree. However, all this discussion is moot, because they haven't filibustered one single nominee. They have only "threatened" to do so and the republicans capitulate.
Talk about Pavlovian conditioning. The Dims have the senate republicans trained very well. Not that they've needed much training to roll over and play dead. Seems to come naturally.
No one has ever proposed that they end legislative filibusters, only judicial ones.