People (most recently, today's The Daily, but they are far from alone) keep talking about Senate rules (e.g. the Filibuster Rule) as if they are constraining precedent. This is inaccurate, and is lending credence to a false narrative advanced by one of the parties. A thread

There are two binding constraints, and only two binding constraints, on the Senate and House rules:

1) Article 1, Section 5 of the constitution which says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings", so that they aren't reviewable by, for example, the Supreme Court

2) What 50%+1 percent of members of each chamber think the rules should be.

That's it. They can set any rules they want. If they wanted a rule that said members had to speak in pig Latin on Thursdays, they could adopt it. That would be silly, but you take my point.

Any rule by the parliamentarian about precedent can be overruled by 50% of the chamber. So "precedent" in the House and Senate rules doesn't work like, for example, precedent in the lower courts. It's just political cover for people who want rules to remain the same

So when news organizations like The Daily report that Reid's move to kill the filibuster for lower court nominations created a precedent that "allowed" McConnell to kill the filibuster for SCOTUS, they are not only buying into McConnell's spin, they are misleading listeners

A majority leader can have whatever rules they and 50% +1 of the chamber want the rules to be. That McConnell didn't kill the legislative filibuster is a signal only that his members didn't want or need that to achieve their legislative objectives.

So when thinking about Senate rules like the filibuster, legal precedents are the wrong analogy. A better analogy is Calvinball

Moreover, it's not Republicans who are blocking filibuster reform (even if they were using the filibuster to do so), it's Sens. Sinema and Manchin who have opposed it. 50% +1, that's the only rule.

Final thought. It probably is unwise to change the rules radically every term, because in general it is better for the Senate to spend time debating and then voting up or down on legislation that affects the important issues facing our nation. Stability in rules is generally good

But when the rules get in the way of taking up and down votes that effect the important issues facing our nation, then the rules should be changed. The legislative filibuster has shown itself to be such a rule.

If Republicans sincerely oppose COVID relief, raising the minimum wage, and so on, then they should vote as their consciences and constituencies tells them. But they should have to take the vote, not cower behind an artifice of precedent.

And moreover, Sinema and Manchin should stop providing political cover for such refusals to vote up or down on the important issues of the day.