Cornyn says eliminating the 60-vote rule would damage democracy and make legislation less durable.

Cornyn also warning at some point the "shoe" would be on the other foot, what goes around comes around and so on.

I.E., if Democrats eliminate the filibuster, don't expect Rs to bring it back when they return to power.

Cornyn also talks up value of "comity" he attributes to the filibuster rule, but also notes the filibuster blocked GOP virus relief bill for months last year.

(True to a point: McConnell's relief bill was still DOA in the Democratic House.)

Also worth noting: Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act with 50+VP via budget reconciliation. They weren't waxing poetic about the value of the filibuster or 60 votes then, they were trying to maximize the repeal-age they could do w/simple majority under the rules.

A lot of Dem priorities require 60 votes but a lot of R priorities only require 50+VP. Why? You can defund a lot of stuff with reconciliation. You can cut taxes. Regs are harder, but Rs did a lot of that too with simple majority votes to nuke assorted Obama rules.

Ted Cruz also tried to repeal far more of the ACA w/maximalist view of reconciliation but couldn't convince either parls or 49 of his colleagues + Pence to go along.