Bipartisan Filibuster Reform?

So how rich would it be if truly radical filibuster reform–defined as eliminating the right to filibuster not just lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court but regular legislation–was implemented by Senate Republicans just trying to keep those crazy House Republicans at bay? I mean, really, as Brian Beutler of TNR, who feels about this subject pretty much the same as I do, reminded us today, not that long ago House Republicans were talking about obstructing any legislation that passed the Senate with a mere 50 votes.

But that is indeed the latest demand of House conservatives who want Senate Republicans to do whatever is necessary to get a DHS appropriations bill with no funding for Obama’s executive actions on immigration onto Barack Obama’s desk. Indeed, House firebrands are actually criticizing Ted Cruz for being insufficiently militant in the current circumstances.

Is it possible we could stumble into a bipartisan coalition for radical filibuster reform? Probably not. The House conservatives demanding this step are framing it as a temporary suspension of filibuster rights in the face of a “constitutional crisis.” This probably means they want to preserve the filibuster for regular old legislation. But to be honest with you, every time people in either party lash out at ol’ Phil A. Buster, the bipartisan hypocrisy involved in maintaining this anti-democratic device becomes a bit more painful.

Ed Kilgore

Ed Kilgore, a Monthly contributing editor, is a columnist for the Daily Intelligencer, New York magazine’s politics blog, and the managing editor for the Democratic Strategist.