I wouldn't be so harsh on them even if I were you. A filibuster has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with policy, and policy is where you should reward or punish congresscritters by working for or against their future election.
Even if all 44 Democrats were united in opposition, they couldn't block Alito's confirmation; the Republicans could and almost certainly would revoke the filibuster rules. So a vote against the filibuster isn't a vote in favor of Alito, it's a vote saying "I and/or the Democrats have more to lose by looking obstructionist than I/we have to gain by looking unwavering in opposition." A political decision - they may be right or wrong about the effects, but whatever the effects are they won't influence the Alito outcome, just the next election's outcome.
If you want to punish people over Alito, concentrate your wrath on Byrd, Johnson, Nelson, and Conrad, who have said they'll vote to confirm Alito. That's the vote that reveals their policies; that's the one that really counts.
no subject
Even if all 44 Democrats were united in opposition, they couldn't block Alito's confirmation; the Republicans could and almost certainly would revoke the filibuster rules. So a vote against the filibuster isn't a vote in favor of Alito, it's a vote saying "I and/or the Democrats have more to lose by looking obstructionist than I/we have to gain by looking unwavering in opposition." A political decision - they may be right or wrong about the effects, but whatever the effects are they won't influence the Alito outcome, just the next election's outcome.
If you want to punish people over Alito, concentrate your wrath on Byrd, Johnson, Nelson, and Conrad, who have said they'll vote to confirm Alito. That's the vote that reveals their policies; that's the one that really counts.