Filibuster Logic

I find it very difficult to agree with the majority of what any one political pundit has to say. It’s a rare case where I read an article that I don’t have at least some problem with the language and logic used in the article. Normally this is just in the back of my head and doesn’t really get to me. But the current “debate” over changing the filibuster rules has sent me over the edge.
Take, for example, this from Ronald D. Rotunda, a law professor at George Mason,

The filibuster has a long history, but its pedigree should not make us proud. It prevented civil rights legislation from being adopted for nearly a century. Now a minority of senators is using it to prevent the Senate from voting on judicial nominees even though a majority of the senators from both parties would vote to confirm if they only could vote.

Aaaaaah! The logic in this paragraph is (1) filibuster blocked civil rights legislation, (2) that was bad, (3) the filibuster is being used to block judicial nominations, (4) ergo blocking those judges (“even though”) must be bad. What kind of logic is that?
In the last paragraph of the article we further find

Now, a minority of senators once again claims that the Senate cannot change it rules to prevent this filibuster unless a super-majority agree. That is wrong. To paraphrase Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, to vote without debate is unwise, but to debate without even being able to vote is ridiculous.

Ack. Not being able to vote is ridiculous, but the filibuster IS a vote. It’s a vote by 41 Senators not to proceed. Just because a vote is not a majority vote does not invalidate that it is a vote. By a similar logic, votes to amend the constitution do not constitute a proper vote because they require supermajorities.
OK, sorry, I don’t usually make to many political posts, but this lack of logic in the debate is making me bonkers.