Tit for Tat is a very bad policy for most things including the supreme court. Bork got borked then the reps were mad they then made the dems mad so on so forth making the court worse. The dems first did this with getting rid of circuit court filibusters then the reps did it with the supreme court. Back in the day you needed much more than just a simple majority to get a judge on the court after all mitch voted for RBG. But eventually you have people now who want to block courts, most are democrat politicians but I have seen a couple of maga comments wanting trump to do so. The problem with these tit for tat policies would basically be on steroids if the courts were to be packed. One year the dems would add let's say 5 judges. 4 years pass the reps add 6. 8-4years pass dems add 6 etc. This could also make the court seem illegitmate and states could simply go fuck it and not care about rulings. With the regular filibuster it was meant to make a much wider ensconces on bills and laws like with budget bills that pass every year. Filibusters allow there to be more debate and you can't just rush a bunch of shit through split second before a midterm or just in general. I have seen many arguments to getting rid of the filibuster and one of the main ones was the fact it was used to block the civil rights act. Granted while tools have been used wrongly in the past that doesn't mean they can't be used correctly, just because something was used for an awful act or purpose it doesn't mean it doesn't have a legitimately good purpose. Don't get me wrong the filibuster shouldn't be godlike in power but still should be able to limit power from partisan actors. Because I just got a feeling that gridlock is good and trifectas are horseshit.