OK, I’ve decided that the filibuster, as it currently exists, is an abuse of procedural rules to force a substantive outcome. (And I’m talking about all filibusters, not just filibusters of judicial nominees.) Its purported justification is to ensure adequate debate, but at some point further debate becomes fruitless.
So here’s my proposed change to the filibuster: Allow each Senator unlimited time to speak either for or against the issue, but once they yield the floor, they’re done and are ineligible to have the floor yielded to them for more debate on the same issue.
The principle of allowing adequate debate is still served, as every opponent of a proposal will have had time to speak against it until they could speak no more. As a delaying tactic that can put pressure on the majority, it still works because opposing Senators could tie up the Senate for days or weeks. But after every opponent had spoken against a proposal, it would be voted on. (It would still require 60 votes to close off debate before every opponent had a chanced to speak.)