I believe that technically, the Fortas filibuster was actually on the motion on whether or not the Senate would take up the actual consideration of Fortas for Chief Justice. I remember reading somewhere a few weeks ago about how Ernest Hollings read through long passages from a book as part of this filibuster. But, in any event, the filibuster of the motion to bring up the Fortas nomination for a full vote ended up with Fortas not being confirmed after he was recommended by the committee.
The truth is that the Senate can make any rules it wants, including 100% agreement however foolish that would be. Since the constitution gives the Senate no specific guidance on procedural matters of how to conduct its business, the Senate must make its own rules. I think this is perfectly legitimate no matter which party is in charge.
The issue does boil down to just what "advice and consent" means. I personally think that when the Senate goes about giving or not giving advice and/or consent, which ever way that goes, it is subject to the rules adopted by the Senate for it's operation. There is nothing unconstitutional about the Senate changing the filibuster rules on judicial appointments to a simple majority if that's what it votes to do. The Dems' only valid argument is against the abolition of the Senate precedent and tradition of the filibuster and nothing else. And, as the GOP argues, once that rule is changed, that becomes the new precedent.
But going back to my original post, I do question whether it is wise to change the rules, regardless of whether the Senate can or cannot change the rules. I think that in the long run this will come back to bite the GOP in the posterior as the mood of the country swings back and forth like a pendulum. One day, the Dems will control the Senate again. Sorry if that bothers some, but that's the nature of the beast we call politics.
well said.