At worst it will go to the Supreme Court to decide if a new Senate is bound by the rules of an old Senate. Prominent legal spokesmen have said that the constitution does NOT bind a new Senate to the rules of the previous Senate. To do so is to make the old rules have the force of an amendment to the constitution without following proper amendment procedures. (In other words to say they cannot change a rule is to make the rule have the force of a constitutional amendment.)
This Supreme Court has members who want to retire.
They will vote 5-4 or 6-3 that a new Senate is not bound by the rules of an old Senate. They will say that each new Senate, by constitution, is entitled to establish its own rules.
ABSTRACT: Catherine Fisk Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; Erwin Chemerinsky University of Southern California ...... The filibuster in the United States Senate imposes an effective supermajority requirement for the enactment of most legislation because sixty votes are required to bring a measure to a vote over the objection of any senator. .... They first conclude that a judicial challenge to the Senate rules that permit it would be justiciable if brought by proper plaintiffs. They then conclude that, although the filibuster itself is not unconstitutional, the Senate rule that prohibits a majority of a newly elected Senate from abolishing the filibuster is unconstitutional because it impermissibly entrenches the decisions of past Congresses.