Actually, I think Rush Limbaugh said it better:
Originally Posted by MMC
"The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes. But because they're invoking the filibuster, which, you know, the Senate can make up its own rules but not when they impose on the Constitution and not when they impose on the legislative branch. Separation of powers here. But if nobody stops them, they're going to keep getting away with it. It's up to the Senate Republicans to stop them."
Hannity also had a good point:
"There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional."
Rich Lowry, in the NRO, didn't mind it either:
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist should take away their ability to mount unprecedented judicial filibusters through the so-called nuclear option, then sleep the sleep of an utterly justified defender of Senate tradition."
And Karl Rove demanded an up-or-down vote for nominees:
"We believe that fairness means these people deserve an up-or-down vote. The Senate can debate, the Senate has a right to oppose, it has a right to support, but it has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote. And it's only fair."
Aaaaand for good measure, Bill Kristol:
"That's the constitutional underpinning of our history, which is not to filibuster presidential nominees. The president has the duty to fill those jobs. Congress should advise and consent, or not advise -- not consent. "
And of course, I don't hear anyone saying the House should institute new rules introducing filibusters, or requiring supermajorities.
The bottom line is that FILIBUSTERS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY; and both Democrats and Republicans have flipped their positions since 2005. If the Democrats are doing this "purely" for advantage, then the Republicans -- who wanted to nuke the filibuster in 2005 -- are also opposing it as a knee-jerk partisan reaction.