Constitutional Option

I discuss here how the "constitutional option" reasonably can allow the Senate to change (not end) its filibuster rules by majority vote on the first "day" of the session. As a leader in the movement noted in a speech, quoting a National Review article by Sen. Hatch back when the "nuclear option" was raised by the Republicans to prevent the blocking of Bush judicial nominees [which might be treated differently, in theory]:

The Senate has been called a "continuing body." Yet language reflecting this observation was included in Senate rules only in 1959. The more important, and much older, sense in which the Senate is a continuing body is its ongoing constitutional authority to determine its rules. Rulings by vice presidents of both parties, sitting as the President of the Senate, confirm that each Senate may make that decision for itself, either implicitly by acquiescence or explicitly by amendment. Both conservative and liberal legal scholars, including those who see no constitutional problems with the current filibuster campaign, agree that a simple majority can change Senate rules at the beginning of a new Congress.”

Sen. Udall is doing yeoman duty here, part of a real effort of actually governing, and taking part in significant change, change for the better at that. Take it when you can given the new Republican controlled House will make things a lot less likely in that general direction (at least both at once). It's all a tad convoluted, even if logically Art. I power over setting rules, a power not among those where a supermajority is noted, suggests the path should be simple. But, as I noted in that original link (versus someone who wanted to red herring to death), Senate custom (including principles that guide it) is like that while balancing various sentiments. Actually, "mls" over there cited the balance fairly well:

a duty to balance the Senate’s institutional interest in preserving its rules and traditions (regardless of whether one considers this interest constitutional or extra-constitutional in nature) versus the interest in ensuring that the Senate’s rules do not effectively deprive the Senate of its rulemaking power and/or conflict with the principle of majority rule

This balance involves providing a time, such as the first day as the new session, where a majority can use the "constitutional option" set forth in that document, the potential to do so putting pressure on the senators to reach a compromise. This is likely to occur in the end here. I don't know what will happen really. It very well might turn out to be pretty anti-climatic. But, Sen. Udall and company is to be praised for pushing for actual filibuster reform, given how unbalanced the process has gotten, unbalanced in favor of a certain party. Reform, not end, like it or not.

Let's see what the actual plan entails, if there be one, since anything arguably on the table now is still open to negotiation. Will Republicans (and a few Democrats) block it, even though they control the House and one day will benefit when they regain control of the Senate? Remember again that the Democrats did not use the filibuster to block much Republican legislation during the Bush years, so it was no savior back then, and again the reforms won't end its use. And, there will be other means of delay. I think that if a health care-like effort was put that even Social Security privatization would have passed on some level, so again, it is no silver bullet. As to judicial nominees, if they are to be treated differently or not, how did that go in stopping conservative nominees, even if Miguel Estrada (tossed around there repeatedly as compared to any number of others) was blocked?

Anyway, constitutional options should get a lot of support in Congress, right? And, along with freedom of debate, which is fine up to a point, that includes changing the rules so that a lead weight is not on one side of the seesaw. Or one quite so heavy.