None of this makes sense. To change the rules of the Senate it takes 67 votes. Not going to happen.
Back in 2006, there was much talk about the so-called "nuclear option" over judicial appointments. As such, there was also some acedemic legal research done on the topic. One of those researchers was a guy named Lawrence Solum, who co-authored a paper titled Judicial Selection, Appointments Gridlock, and the Nuclear Option , that appeared in the Journal of Contemporary Legal issues. It may be found here.
In it, they detail how the nuclear option would work. And, it doesn't involve the 67 votes normally needed to amend the Senate Rules. In short, it's a back door parliamentary trick. You can read the whole thing if you like, but the relevant passage from their article is...
"The term “nuclear option” is not well defined, but it usually refers to the use of procedure—in particular, a ruling of the chair sustained by a simple majority—to achieve cloture without the sixty or sixty-six vote supermajority specified by Rule XXII. Though the nuclear option may be executed in a number of ways...
[t]he underlying strategy is that a Republican senator would raise a point of order that the consideration of judicial nominees may not be filibustered, and the chair—most likely Vice President Cheney, in his capacity as President of the Senate—would sustain the point of order. A simple majority vote would then suffice to win any appeal of the chair’s ruling, or to table any objections to the ruling
That's it in a nutshell.
It also can only be done at the beginning of the year. (new Congress)
It might take less than 67. When Bill Frist was considering the "nuclear option" to end Reid's judicial obstruction, the GOP had nowhere near 67 Senators.