I’m sure glad our side didn’t use the ‘nuclear option’.
The Republicans wisely understood, and announced publicly, that if they restrained themselves and didn’t use it when they were able to, the Democrats would also respect the Republicans actions and restrain themselves when their ‘turn’ came.
The "nuclear option" would have been a proper response to the Democrats filibustering judicial nominees. According to "my" experts, the Constitution gives the Senate the right to make it's own rules and the filibuster is Constitutionally acceptable when applied to legislation, which is the business of the Senate. But a filibuster had never been used in our history in the confirmation process, in part, because "advise and consent" relates to a requirement of another branch of government, the executive, to make appointments. Never used, that is, until Democrats' the-ends-justify-the-means ideology excused their use of it.
By filibustering, and not allowing a full Senate vote on nominees, the Democrats were violating the Constitution. That is completely different than Republicans using the filibuster to block a legislative vote.
But, the notion that the Republicans are bad guys for passing a slightly different law in the Senate than in the House is, for me, somewhat petty, considering all the legislation that doesn't get voted on by either house. I'm referring to executive orders and government regulations that have the force of law but are enacted by bureaucrats at the EPA, OSHA etc.