I always have enjoyed former U.S. Sen. Carl Levin.

I suppose that could seem strange to readers, who might tend to label me a conservative and Levin a liberal.

Then again, that’s why labels are dangerous.

What I have appreciated most about Levin over the years was his love for Michigan, his support for all things Northeast Michigan and his honest candor in interview sessions. Some politicians like only to dabble in safe topics and frame their answers carefully to questions. Not Levin. He always would give you a straight-up answer to any question, and tackled them all.

Levin was a Senate purist. By that, I mean he was a master of parliamentary rule and as a seasoned legislator, he understood the procedures and rules of order that made the U.S. Senate unique, and special.

Thursday, I’m sure, his heart was broken as the Senate put into motion the “nuclear option” regarding the vote of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. He, better than anyone, would understand that from this point forward, the uniqueness of the Senate was forever lost, and from that day on the body would be nothing more than a smaller version of the House of Representatives, where the majority party always is in control.

Sad as I’m sure he was Thursday, I also am just as sure he understood why Republicans were enacting the nuclear clause.

Back in 2013 then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid first instituted the “nuclear option” for circuit court appointments proposed at that time by President Barack Obama. Democrats did not have the needed votes to break the filibuster Republicans were using against the judges at that time, so Reid changed the rules of the Senate and effectively ended the filibuster just as Republicans did Thursday.

As Reid contemplated the action in 2013, Levin emphatically warned the body that such a change could become a Pandora’s Box of frustration to Democrats later.

“We should have avoided the nuclear option,” he said. “We should have avoided violating our precedents. We should have avoided changing and creating a precedent, which can be used in the same way on legislation. It may give comfort to some today — ‘But this is only on judges, this is only on executive appointments.’ This precedent can equally apply to a majority that wants to change the rules relative to the legislative process.”

Levin’s words years ago seemed almost prophetic when you consider what happened this week. And the sad thing about it — it need not have happened if only Reid and McConnell would have seriously sought and negotiated compromises instead of standing firm in their resolve to not concede an inch to the opposition party.

Instead, our founding fathers probably joined with Levin the other day in shedding a tear.

“In the short term, judges will be confirmed who should be confirmed,” Levin said on Nov. 21, 2013. “But when the precedent is set, the majority of this body can change the rules at will — which is what the majority did today — if it can be changed on judges or on other nominees, this precedent is going to be used, I fear, to change the rules on consideration of legislation. And down the road — we don’t know how far down the road; we never know that in a democracy — but, down the road, the hard-won protections and benefits for our people’s health and welfare will be lost.”

What Democrats began years ago, Republicans finished this week.

Is it any wonder Americans are so cynical of their lawmakers?

Editor’s Note: The entire 20 minute speech of Levin to Senate colleagues Nov. 21, 2013, can be watched by going to C-Span’s internet site and accessing its library of speeches.