Why not in the case of a tie? The Vice President of the United States is the ex officio President of the United States Senate, as provided in Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution:
“ The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
It's not at all clear that all 52 Republican Senators want to give that up.
The Dems under Reid had no problem in giving it up. They are used to being in the majority and even govern when in the minority. Any Rep that fails to vote in the affirmative to change the Senate rules to allow just a majority to confirm an appointment to SCOTUS should be primaried and buried under an avalanche of calls to his/her office. McConnell should strip them of their committee assignments.
There has been no partisan filibuster of SCOTUS nominees in our history. Even Clarence Thomas was given an up or down vote. In essence, abolishing the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees, is returning back to custom and tradition by allowing an up or down vote. The Dems are the ones who are really changing the rules by filibustering Gorsuch.
DEMs will (did) point to Garland and used that as an example of a righteous filibuster of a nominee.
-- The Dems are the ones who are really changing the rules by filibustering Gorsuch. --
Quite true. I'm not sure I'd call it "the rules," but Senate custom has always been to allow complete deference to majority, on SCOTUS nominees. All that is happening with Gorsuch is that this custom is being institutionalized and protected against gaming Rule XXII to allow a minority veto of a SCOTUS nominee.
The headline should be - Republicans in the Senate bring order back after rebellious Democrats break with long-standing tradition and practice to filibuster, for the first time ever, a President's nomination to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.