You presume there are 51 votes to change the rules (Pence does not vote on rules).
In 1967, Hubert Humphrey (VP and therefore President of the Senate) made a ruling from the chair that requiring a supermajority to close debate was unconstitutional, and that debate could be closed with 51 votes.
This ruling was appealed to the floor.
At the time, the Democrats had 68 Senators and the GOP had 32.
Humphrey's ruling was overturned 46-54. The power to block legislation while a Senator is a member of the minority is one of the most awesome powers given to a legislator anywhere in the world. It's not at all clear that all 52 Republican Senators want to give that up.
Well, that’s McConnell’s job to keep them in line, then. I mean... face it, who wouldn’t be intimidated by Mitch McConnell?
Why not in the case of a tie? The Vice President of the United States is the ex officio President of the United States Senate, as provided in Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution:
“ The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
It's not at all clear that all 52 Republican Senators want to give that up.
The Dems under Reid had no problem in giving it up. They are used to being in the majority and even govern when in the minority. Any Rep that fails to vote in the affirmative to change the Senate rules to allow just a majority to confirm an appointment to SCOTUS should be primaried and buried under an avalanche of calls to his/her office. McConnell should strip them of their committee assignments.
There has been no partisan filibuster of SCOTUS nominees in our history. Even Clarence Thomas was given an up or down vote. In essence, abolishing the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees, is returning back to custom and tradition by allowing an up or down vote. The Dems are the ones who are really changing the rules by filibustering Gorsuch.
They have no choice given the state of the RATs.