That's a false equivalence, and in fact the rationale for the Dems to change the filibuster rule in the past is the same rationale for opposing it for Gorsich. The Republicans had adopted an unprecedented tactic of denying Democrats any court appointments. They were holding up every single person Obama nominated, not for reasons of objections to the candidates, but because they don't want Democrats to appoint judges. The denial of Merrick Garland a hearing in the Senate was a continuation of that strategy, unprecedented in US history, and changing the filibuster rule is for Gorsich is the final completion of the strategy. But it's also a very short-sighted tactic that will come back to haunt them when they sit in the minority.
Eliminating the requirement for broad support is a formula for politicizing the court even further. If all that's needed is a majority, there's no good reason to nominate moderate, consensus judges.
