I don't know. It's a close call.
On the one hand, Jonathan Chait asserts that the "silliest bit of hand-wringing may be the fear that allowing majority-vote confirmations for judges will pave the way for radical Republican judges.... Except Republicans have been committed to doing this exact thing for years... The threat to nominate more Scalias is about as frightening as Iran threatening to cut off its donations to the Jewish National Fund."
On the other hand, we have the superlative silliness of the hand-wringers themselves. At first, for instance, John McCain apocalyptically grieved that "Now there are no rules in the United States Senate," and then he suggested--egads!--that the Senate's usual legislative efficiency may be chilled by the rule change.
And, as you know, where there's a McCain, there's a Graham: "I just think after today, legislating's going to be pretty tough." (Dick Durbin put Graham's nostalgia for the Senate's earlier efficiency in perspective: "We put the government back in business thank goodness, but beyond that the strategic helium reserve bill is really the centerpiece of what we’ve done.")
As New Republic notes, Senate Republicans are protesting on--what else?--high principle that "Ending Filibusters Is Unconstitutional and Un-American." So, they threaten, should we regain the majority, "We'll Do it, Too." Because, of course, a high principle is at stake.
What all this silliness may well come down to in the 114th Congress is President Obama spending his days vetoing tumbrels of ACA repeals (along with dead-letter mounds of other imbecilic legislation), passed by GOP majorities. Then, and only then, will congressional silliness achieve its highest perfection.