Should the filibuster rule be changed?

Over the past two years, the Democrats have done something unprecedented. They have filibustered President Bush's judicial nominees. The result is that many of these nominees have not been confirmed despite the fact that a majority of US Senators are on record as supporting their confirmation.

These nomination fights have generated discussion regarding proposed changes to US Senate rules. The Wall Street Journal writes

The idea is that if the Democrats filibuster another nominee, Majority Leader Bill Frist would ask for a ruling from the Senate's presiding officer that under Rule XXII only a simple majority vote is needed to end debate on judicial nominations. Assuming 51 Members concur--and GOP nose-counters say they have the votes--the Senate would then move to an up-or-down floor vote.

One thing that should be pointed out is that the filibuster rule, the rule that says 60 votes are needed in order to end debate, is not in the United States Constitution. The Constitution describes instances where a super-majority vote is required (defeating a Presidential veto, passing a Constitutional Amendment, ratifying a treaty, etc...). But in all other instances it is assumed that a simple majority is sufficient.

Personally, I don't believe that the filibuster has served our nation well over the years. One could argue that African-Americans might have been able to exercise their civil rights several years earlier if the US Senate did not have filibuster rules. And in today's extremely polarized political environment, it seems that the filibuster guarantees inaction on important issues. In any case, the changes some Republicans are hoping to make to the filibuster rule would only affect judicial, and perhaps cabinet, nominees. I think they should make the rule change by a simple majority vote and ignore what I believe is the unconstitutional Senate rule that says it takes a 2/3rds vote to change a Senate rule.