Thanks.. Yes, I know the history of the filibuster rule. But, we have 200 years of precedent of the filibuster NOT being used for confirmation of judges. Well, except for a temporary application in one extreme case, I suppose...
I believe the issue is debatable, and needed to be resolved. I think it is abundantly clear what the Founders intended: They wanted to Senate to VOTE: Yea, or Nea. Heck, they thought the “advice and consent” was so informal, that it would likely be waived for judges in lower courts. I guess they underestimated the power of political gamesmanship.
I believe, the Senate has usurped a power that is NOT granted to them in the constitution. On legislative matters, they can set any hurdle they wish. But, confirmation of appointments involves their relationship with the another, co-equal branches of government: the establishment of the Judiciary, and the Chief Executive’s power of appointment. Because of this interaction, the Senate does NOT have the authority to impose stricter requirements. At least, that is my opinion. And, it is the opinion of most scholars I’ve read who dare to write about it.
I agree with most of that with some reservations.
I agree that the authors didn't intend for a minority to be able to indefinitely frustrate the will of the majority, but neither did they intend for Congress to function on the basis of pure democracy. They intended to create a Republic governed by the people through their elected representatives, but not a pure democracy which IMHO is one of the least desirable forms of government.
The checks and balances built into our original Republican form of government have been altered over time more than I would have liked, for one example the 17th Amendment that took away the power of state legislatures to elect US Senators. I think that in the overall picture unlimited debate in Senate proceedings is beneficial in many instances and probably necessary to maintain a Republican form of government in which the will of a sizable minority of the people at large can't be easily steamrollered by a relatively small majority.