It's a bad idea - for several reasons:
- Using the filibuster for partisan purposes (and, what OTHER reason would a Democrat have for using it?) would clog up the system unnecessarily. Unless those opposing a nominee can marshall solid reasons, related to the performance of their judicial responsibilities, for turning thumbs down to a nominee, that person should be affirmed. Too many courts are backlogged already - we needn't make the situation worse by making it hard to get replacements or reinforcements.
- Yes, the filibuster is a time-honored tradition - so are duels. Some old ideas need to stay DEAD.
- Lastly, I'm in favor of keeping the status quo, because it would be a necessary correction to the recent rampage of the Senate demagogues. They imposed rules and procedures to make THEIR rule opposition-free. They should have to live with the consequences of their actions for at least as long as they used the changes against Conservatives/Republicans/Any Sane Legislator.