See this commentary. A snippet: “The debate over the propriety of judicial filibusters would not matter so much if the appointment of judges were inconsequential. But because the appointment of new Supreme Court Justices potentially amounts to amending the Constitution, the current debate over the judicial filibuster is tantamount to a debate over the proper procedure for constitutional amendments. Yet because Framers of the Constitution never originally intended the Advice and Consent role of the Senate to serve as a surrogate method of ratifying (or blocking) proposed constitutional changes, the Constitution itself is silent on whether it is appropriate for the Senate to use its usual filibuster rules when engaging in this extraordinary Constitution-amending function.”