Now filibustering is a right?

I am prone to channel surfing on weekends. In that down-time in the late afternoons on Sundays, when I feel like I have catching up to do on wordly events, it is necessary. I somehow found myself watching a news report, and I use that term loosely, on CNN which covered the present state of the filibuster battle in the U. S. Senate. There was not much out of the ordinary. The report was basically a run-down of where the current timeline was and is headed. The thing that struck me funny was the announcer referring to the practice of filibustering as a "right". I thought to myself, now they are calling filibustering judicial nominees a right!? When did filibustering of any kind become a right?
Of course we have a bill of rights, in which filibustering is not included. There are seventeen other amendments to the constitution that do not include the right to filibuster. We have socially and worldly held beliefs in the rights of man called civil rights, and in those are not contained the right to filibuster. What we do have is parlimentary rule inside the chambers of the U. S. Senate which allows a member to filibuster any further movement on specific, official Senate business. Now, call me cuckoo, but I would not consider that a right. And if you were to ask the announcer on CNN they would probably agree with me. For it probably was a talking head reading off a teleprompter who had nothing to do with the content. I love how journalists frame an argument for their side, which in turn shades the content of said argument in a more convincing light in their favor. When have you ever heard a news story about a gun control law described as an infringment on the right to bear arms, or a a left-wing news source discuss the first amendment implications of the McCain-Feingold law, which inhibits the right of political free speech? How about a news story about affirmative action, as a practice which steps all over the XIV amendment, which affords all citizens equal protection? Ever hear one of those on the CBS evening news?
Liberals are quick to describe non-rights as rights to give weight to their arguments which have no legal foundation. Even the right to abortion on demand (couldn't find that anywhere either, but smarter people than me found it).
Laws or amendments are passed which in turn afford us rights. Certain laws are basic and are considered manifest. Whether they are divinely attributed is an argument for another day. If one were to look at the legislative history of our United States, the term right, carries with it a sense of responsibility and earnest which is too important to be thrown around to curry favor in an argument. The Amercian Heritage Dictionary describes a right as:
"That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting".
The democrat strategy of filibustering judges are none of those. The action by these cowards is not a right, it should not be saved, and is a feeble attempt of a once proud party that is unable to comes to terms with the real idea of minority status.