In this Roll Call article, “‘Gang of 14’ Mulls Script for Next Act,” the following appears:

Though he supported the nuclear option at the time, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said, “In retrospect, I have to admit they served a useful purpose in diffusing a stalemate. … Looking back, the outcome was positive.”
Cornyn said he could envision the remaining members — Nelson, McCain, Landrieu and Collins, plus Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), John Warner (R-Va.), Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) — playing a similar role in upcoming judicial and policy battles.
“Those Senators could very well serve a useful function,” Cornyn said.

It is perhaps unsurprising to a cynical observer that a Republican like Senator Cornyn, about to be in the minority, has new-found appreciation for the filibuster. As I noted in an April 2005 Roll Call oped:

The point about Republican hypocrisy on majority rule has some elements of truth to it. But Republicans have no monopoly on hypocrisy. When Democrats controlled things, they argued against Republican filibusters (and some even advocated the nuclear option) as Republicans touted the benefits of filibusters. Republicans will no doubt do so again the next time they are in the minority in the Senate with a Democratic president. And at that point, we can hope that the Democrats don’t threaten to “go nuclear.” It would be a shame if either party ended the important role that the Senate has played in American politics.

Indeed, with a Democratic majority and a Republican president somewhat in a veil of ignorance about the future, now would be an excellent time for both parties to consider if there are sensible changes to be made (say beginning after the 2008 elections) to the judicial selection process.