Harry Reid removing the filibuster for judicial appointments is what allowed Trump to get three very conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Removing the filibuster just to get legislation passed, it's only a good strategy if you plan to never lose an election. Where the filibuster prevents a slim liberal majority in the Senate from passing some legislation, it also prevents the conservatives from passing legislation when they have a slim majority.  I worry about passing legislation on 51 vote majorities, without some form of consensus laws  can swing back-and-forth depending upon who is in control.

The reason I prefer codifying rights in the Constitution, is because it's harder to do. If something is hard to do it is equally hard to undo. Yes it is more work to get privacy added to the constitution, but it would be enduring. Passing a law when one side of the other has a slight majority in both houses is easy which leads to inconsistency.

Of course what's worse is enforcing rules by executive fiat. Whether it's by executive order, or by rules enacted by an administrative department, these rules can be changed at the whim of one person.

I still contend that these major questions of rights for citizens and residents of this country should be codified in the Constitution and that a Constitutional Convention of States is important that the structure.