That this was a good move is indicated by crying Schumer:

“This is a very sad day for the Senate,” Mr. Schumer said, arguing that an emboldened minority party has long been a signature of the Senate. “The majority, by taking yet another step to erode that legacy, risks turning this body into a colosseum of zero-sum infighting, a place where the brute power of the majority ultimately rules.”

Brute power? Don't you recall Chucky the days of Harry Reid? His brute power was much more bruising.

Smell the roses!

The filibuster has never made sense to me. It guarantees "Rule by the Minority" on all Presidential appointments and any bill in the Senate. .
How many good nominees have been rejected because of this rule? How many bills not passed ?
It is well beyond time to get rid of it.

Except in votes for impeachment and to overrule a veto, I know of no 60% rule in the Constitution.

....the only way to deal with the ":communist" left is to label them as such and never let up...communists killed over 150 million individuals in the 20th century...they destroy men, women, and children...6 kids a day die of starvation in Venezuela...infanticide is a legal policy of the communist left in this country...go on the offensive...

the GOP is just the "me too"ers...

I am not starting a new thread on this, but it is noteworthy that the liberals lost a seat in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, putting an end to the Democratic winning streak.

Conservative state appellate judge Brian Hagedorn edged liberal appellate judge Lisa Neubauer by about 5,000 votes. The race isn’t settled as Ms. Neubauer may request a recount because the vote margin was less than one percentage point.

A noteworthy closing sentence of the article reported by the WSJ says:

"Perhaps the emerging radicalism on the left is causing voters to think twice about returning them to power."

You bet. The unhinged party will soon realize where the limits are.

The filibuster actually serves a good purpose when properly used. In Parliamentary Procedure rules, one must obtain a vote to begin discussion on a bill (ostensibly so as not to waste the time of the chamber) and one vote to either set the terms of debate or to end debate and proceed to the actual vote (or to table it). A filibuster is properly engaged to argue that not enough debate has taken place for an informed vote to then follow. The problem is that some politicians (though primarily the Democrats) have been using the "filibuster" to kill bills by soft veto without having to actually vote on the bill. It is 100% dishonest for either side. (If one wants to see a proper use of the filibuster, though theatrical in nature, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is well done. Real filibusters have indeed been undertaken by Senators such as Rand Paul.)

This all applies to proposals for law, however. There is no place for filibustering the appointment of either an Executive Branch or Legislative Branch nominee and any such should be written out of the rules of the Senate. There is no purpose for filibustering a candidate - you either vote up or down. Now as the article correctly points out, Mitch McConnell did indeed block the hearing for the nomination of Merrick Garland. That was no question a political move, but it was not a use of the filibuster but rather of the "Advice and Consent" mandate of the Senate itself. It was a political gamble that paid off and there certainly exist valid differences of opinion regarding its use. Looking back at the history of other nominees such as Robert Bork, however, and what was done by the Democrats to him - let alone the despicable attacks on Brett Kavanaugh), I have little sympathy for the Democrats, viewing them as the instigators in this entire history of Senate conflict.

The other egregious violation of protocol (also not surprisingly carried out by Democrats) is more a formality: the so-called "blue cards" indicating that a particular judicial nominee's home State's Senators approve of the nomination. Even as a formality this one violates separation of powers by giving the Legislative Branch a pocket veto over candidates even prior to an actual hearing - let alone vote. It too should never have been allowed to be instituted in the first place and the Senate should move to alter the rules and eliminate its use.

As a final note, I will also point out, however, that true Parliamentary Procedure is violated by the Senate's elevation of the Senate Majority Leader to the position of one who holds singular power over which bills are heard by the Senate. It is a practice I abhor because it basically makes that person an executive princeling rather than a legislator. They should be holding a vote on whether or not to hear a bill in the first place with all Senators having the opportunity to weigh in.

The filibuster has always been an essential tool of “Progressives”, as it wastes time and slows things down.

Too bad he didnt do it when Repubs had control over the house. We might have been able to get something done already, like some immigration bills.