As I'm sure everyone knows, Senate Democrats got rid of the filibuster for non-SCOTUS judges and other executive branch nominees yesterday. This was followed immediately, of course, by Republicans making various threats, saying Democrats would be sorry for doing so. So, for all intents and purposes, the filibuster is dead. I assume that if Obama gets the chance to appoint another SCOTUS nominee he/she will be filibustered and that will be that (or, alternatively, this will go away should the Democrats filibuster a GOP President's SCOTUS nominee). Barring filibusters of legislation would not be far behind.
Overall I would say this is a good thing. The senate is already anti-democratic enough (e.g., California has 50 times the population of 4 other states, yet the same representation in the Senate; DC has no representation at all yet is estimated to have more residents than at least 2 states) that adding on a rule that 41 senators can block whatever they want is not conducive to governing the country anymore.
A better reform would be to parcel out Senate seats the way we do house seats, with a minimum of one per state, and then having them elected on a statewide basis. That would still be fairly anti-democratic, but less so. Of course, given the process for amending the Constitution, that would never happen. So, we're stuck with it absent some unforeseen, society-wide upheaval.
Anyway, what say you?