@Finn dAbuzz,
I presume you're referring to Reid's decision to proceed with filibuster reform so that judicial appointments would require a simple majority (for lower courts only). And I expect you understand that this was a response to Republicans blocking Obama appointees to the lower courts.
So let's recap:
1) allowing a
majority vote to determine who serves is something like the exact opposite of "dictatorial", don't you think?
2) one could argue that Reid's decision was bad strategy (given what the GOP with McConnell heading the Senate might later do) but there's no valid or sensible moral charge one can lay against him for that decision.
3) McConnell, of course, extended the filibuster reform to include the SC. Again there is no valid moral claim to be made against McConnell IF that was all he'd done. But of course, it was done in concert with the unprecedented and transparently partisan move to block
any vote on Garland (or any Obama nominee). And he was "proud".
4) He wasn't proud that he was forwarding democratic processes and ideals. He was proud that he had thwarted those things
solely in aid of partisan gain.