The reality has been, for quite some time, that a minority of the body can prevent the body from acting. I think that is dysfunctional. If a minority of the senate can prevent confirmation, then a minority in the senate assumes more power than the majority, and steps on the president's power to nominate and appoint.
So, yes, I am suggesting that the filibuster is inappropriate when the action of the senate is part of the process of staffing the executive department. That 60 vote threshold is set by senate rule - what if it was set at 75?
The constitution does set up a supermajority requirement for ratification of treaties, for amending the constitution, and for overriding a presidential veto. But it does not have a supermajority requirement for confirmation.
When the subject is legislation, the congress can set up whatever it wants, except I think a rule that less than a majority can pass a law would not stand up.
I think doing away with the filibuser invites a situation where the majority can simply steamroller the minority, and that’s what the rule is there to prevent. The rule resists changing because most of the majority understands that one day the shoe will be on the other foot.
We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Mob rule is to be resisted.
That’s just my humble opinion. A good case can be made for keeping the filibuster for statutes and removing it for staffing the Executive branch. But I’m not convinced yet. If this ruling from the court (assuming it stands up in SCOTUS) that only candidates that are nominated during *the* recess can be recess appointed, then this filibuster rule needs to be considered.