I hate the concept of filibustering. It seems to me to be generally un-democratic.
I should think that if something has the votes then it should become law, If not then you did not make your case and it should not become law.
Can anyone cite historical filibusters which resulted in what would for the most part be considered universally a good thing today.
If you think a candidate is too conservative then you should have to convince the majority of senators that he is too conservative otherwise let the vote rock on.
If you think a candidate is a criminal then you need to get out said info and convince the majority again.
If you think a law is too restrictive or too liberal then again you must convince the majority of the duely elected individuals in the senate of the above. the people elected the majority candidates to implement the majority changes. If those changes fall outside of what the people want then they should elect different candidates next time. filibuster gives veto power to the minority.