Nothing I saw in the linked piece suggested they were actually trying to do away with the filibuster rule per se. They're contemplating a couple of fiddling tweaks that are apparently within the arcane Senate rules. One of them would effectively strip the filibuster from judicial nomination proceedings by administrative fiat. That one is unlikely to go very far in my estimation, since it would affect Big Dick's ability to disappear down the rabbit hole for most of the year. He can't subvert the nation from his undisclosed location if he has to pop up in the Well of the Senate on a regular basis to make rulings from the chair.

The other technique would actually capitalize on another standard part of parliamentary law: the twice-on-one-subject-in-one-session rule. And that is unlikely to be of much help to them. Sure, they can extend the "legislative day," and thus keep any one senator from speaking more than twice on a given subject in the course of that "day." But if the Democrats have enough votes to maintain a filibuster, that gives them 41 people who could conceivably speak on it twice apiece. And, at least assuming Aaron Sorkin and his fellow writers got it correct in the "Stackhouse Filibuster" episode of The West Wing, a filibustering senator may yield the floor for questions, which (a) prolongs the filibuster without counting as a second "speech," and (b) gives the talkers a chance to sit down and relax.

Moreover, the mere fact that the Repugs are proposing this doesn't necessarily mean that what they're proposing is (a) possible or (b) legal. (See Guantanamo Bay.) And as the article itself notes, they don't even have a simple majority on board for the proposal: