Yes Danville, filibustering is unacceptable for a nominee to me also unless it's someone who really shouldn't be near a court that influences the lives of 300 million people, whether it's lack of qualification or some really far-out shit the person's said or supported before (and I mean consistently, not a single line of a memo written twenty years ago or whatever). Of course, in those cases, the person usually withdraws or goes down in flames. The system works in this case, so all that's really left to be worked up about are the reported leanings of a nominee.
It also doesn't help that stuff the nominees are allowed to answer explicitly by their handlers is legal claptrap that flies over the heads of 99% of the country.