[kayak]

My understanding (and I'm definitely not a lawyer) is that it isn't filibustering in general that is in question but that filibusters related to the Senate's advise and consent function regarding Presidential nominations violate the Constitutionally-mandated 'majority vote' because they force a super-majority. If that is correct, then it would be a Constitutional issue rather than a matter of Senate rules.

[KellyAdmirer]

Yes, I agree that is the issue. But if the general Senate rule allowing filibusters can be applied in unconstitutional fashions - and that is how the general filibuster rule is being used, to require the super-majority which is not contemplated by the Constitution - then the entire rule itself is flawed and must be re-written in order to only apply in constitionally benigh situations. Or at least that may be a possible argument here. Unconstitutionally vague and all that stuff. Just a possibility, however remote.