At the very least, the Republican use of the filibuster was as novel and far outside anyone's intent for it as was Reid's elimination of the practice. So that whole line of complaint is rather hollow. To demonstrate consider that Republicans intended to filibuster any and all CFPB nominees because they disagreed with its existence as legally prescribed to begin with. That's insane. An advise and consent role is supposed to be about judging candidate quality, not debating their should be a position to consider candidates for. If they disagreed with the law, there are legislative processes of amendment or appeal they could have and should have availed themselves of instead. They thus destroyed any original or legitimate notion of filibustering appointees long before Reid formalized anything.