I added some comments to a discussion of the aforementioned Krugman op-ed on how we need to change the system, particularly how the Senate does business, before real change will occur. I discussed current realities, the need to avoid scapegoats and examined current procedure and the history behind it.
One problem is that the two parties currently work differently: certain Democrats joined with Republicans during the Bush years, but Republicans voted as a bloc (on stimulus, all but three, one later becoming a Democrat) and try to filibuster on a regular basis. And, the problem is not ultimate one person (Lieberman, Nelson or whatever -- there always will be some people on the edge with more power, whose votes will have to be traded for somehow*) but those who go along with a bad system. This includes people who have received some deserved praise such as Sen. Feingold.
In response to someone else, I also pointed out the differences between the House and Senate, both constitutionally and in practice. First, from a CRS Report:
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for a system of staggered six-year terms for Senators, one-third of their terms expiring at the conclusion of each Congress. As a consequence, the Senate is a continuing body and does not have to reorganize itself each new Congress, as does the House of Representatives, by adopting new rules and electing new leaders. Any changes in Senate leadership take place in the party conferences prior to the opening day, and there are no floor votes to ratify these changes.
A CRS report also discussed the "nuclear option." It cites the Nixon finding noted in the comments. Nixon said it was his own opinion and not a ruling from the chair. The proposal to change the rules was tabled. The "continuing rules" practice was upheld.
Here is the beginning of the 111th session of the Senate. It began with a prayer and certificate of elections. These are acts of the Senate. No agreement of rules occurred beforehand. The first resolution related to a quorum being present. Then, the inauguration, time to meet, and sundry mundane matters (which cited standing rules that were by the resolution at times altered in some fashion). As the nuclear option report notes, the attempt to use this process to change the filibuster rule failed thus far. Either way, they did not adopted a new set of rules as a whole.
Here is the same for the House. "Precedent" was cited for the opening proceedings (involving certification of elections and so forth). HR 5 dealt with the rules. Unlike the Senate, the House dealt with the rules as a whole:
That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Tenth Congress, including applicable provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Tenth Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress
Since the House is not, contra the Senate, a "continuing" body, this would be necessary.
In reply, someone argued: "In any event, whatever is going on here is not a Constitutional problem but rather a problem with the Senators themselves." This is debatable. One sticking point in past filibuster debates is that the current regime violates constitutional principles, both the idea of majority rules and the ability of current sessions of the Senate to change rules without being overly tied to the past. OTOH, some like Sen. Byrd think the filibuster is not just some "rule" but basic to the constitutional idea of the Senate.
And, no matter what, current practice is in place and furthered in some fashion because of the systems arising from the Constitution itself. The Constitution does give each house power to set rules for its proceedings, so political question concerns aside, it is not like some federal court will override a change of the filibuster rule by majority vote. But, the nuclear option report and someone on Rachel Maddow last night notes that even there the minority party can make things quite difficult via other rules. This was the case in the Bush years too, but a failure of will meant Democrats did not practice the power they had.
Overall, the filibuster rule and others arise from complex interplay of events and institutions, and should be replaced once they jump the rails. This is so even if they make some degree of sense when restraint is shown.
---
* Keeping an eye out for excesses by said individuals is quite proper and helps show that at some point their power can go too far. It is one thing for a few to water down things to get it out of committee or pass by majority vote, quite another when they might block what 58 senators already have decided upon.