I don't know why I read Opinionator

...cause this is some pretty stupid shit.

Clearly, “push for reform in the Senate rules” here means the demise of the filibuster, or what was called the nuclear option when the Republicans ruled the roost. For Balkin, oddly, that sort of radical change in representative government may not be the most unsettling potential course. 

Radical change in representative government?! By that he means getting rid of the filibuster, which is not in the constitution, and which by some reasonable readings of the constitution actually violates it, and which is a relatively recent innovation. The filibuster has been around for a long time, but no one really used it other than Southern Democrats to secure their herrenvolk democracy. One of the early times it was used for other purposes--to block money for war ships-- led to the creation of rules to control it. Then from WWI to the late 1960s it was only used for civil rights. When it was used for other measures, it quickly led to another change of the rules.

We've thankfully stopped using it as the bulwark of apartheid, but since the 1970s it's use has been almost consistently increasing. And then boom: 110 congress, it's use explodes. I see no reason why the filibuster is an integral part of "representative goverment" but efforts to reform it are "radical changes." The radical change has been in its use, and whenever such changes have happened in the past they've been followed by policy changes to rein it in.