At the time I told anyone who would listen that this was a mistake that the Democrats would rue once they no longer held the Senate.
Of course, the Democrats lost the Senate -- as happens -- and the Republicans happily used the simple majority vote to confirm a metric butt-ton of President Trump's nominations and appointments.
Over the screaming and pearl-clutching of the Democrats.
The worm turns, and now the Democrats have decided to nuke the filibuster -- which, much like the previous nomination and appointment rule, requires 60 votes to break. They'd like to break a filibuster with a simple majority, or get rid of it all together.
Allow me to put on my Cassandra hat. Let us cast our thoughts back to September of 1982. In the Senate, an amendment by Senator Jesse Helms is up for vote. This amendment, if passed, would permanently ban all Federal funding for abortions (excepting only if the mother's life was in danger); it would declare that Roe v. Wade was a mistake; and would provide for direct appeal to the Court if any State should pass pro-abortion legislation.
It failed due to a filibuster by the Democrats. Understand that at the time, the Republicans had the Senate.
How would history be different if the filibuster has not existed?
Does anyone on the Democrat side of the Senate have enough functioning brain cells to understand the implications here? Does anyone on the Democrat side understand that they won't hold the Senate forever, that the Republicans will take it back, and be able to take a successful shot at Roe v. Wade with 51 votes?
Given the reaction over the Democrat's self-inflicted wounds from removing the 60-votes for nomination, I'm guessing not.
So, I'm going on record as saying, "You don't want to get rid of the filibuster. If you do, it's going to bite you on the arse later down the road."