Since Senate Democrats passed filibuster reform last year in order to get President Obama's nominees confirmed, Republicans have been on a rampage. Harry Reid ruled the Senate like a tyrant, they complained. He ruined the institution, they said. They retaliated by doing everything in their power to delay action on nominations. Now, though? Now that they've got the Senate majority—but not a filibuster-proof 60 votes—some of them are thinking that
the new rules are just fine. Others, however, are still pretending they're better than all that, and must restore the sanctity of the Senate.
"Personally, I think we ought to stay right where we are," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
"My view at the time they did it was, if this rule changes, it's likely never to revert back to where it was," said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). "We'll have to see."
"I was opposed, obviously, to the change," said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas). "I'm going to listen to the arguments on both sides." […]
"Tough call. We're going to have that discussion," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. "I've kind of been of the view that we ought to go back to the old rules and take the high road. But my thinking is still evolving on that because they're making a pretty good argument that you can't have two standards."
How much do you want to bet that Republican thinking "evolves" to the point that they not only keep the reforms for nominations, but do away with the ability of minority Democrats to filibuster everything? The only thing standing in their way is 2016, and a much more favorable electoral map for Democrats. Their majority is likely to be short-lived, which just might be enough to moderate their behavior just a little.