[Torie]

Yes the constitution trumps the senate rules, but the rule is about cutting off debate. It is a procedural rule. I appreciate requiring supre majorities to cut off debate has substantive effect, but it has been around since the nation's founding. It used to be one senator could tie up the place. It didn't drop down to two thirds until the 20th century. I don't think SCOTUS will mess with a procedural rule, and indeed the Senate might ignore SCOTUS if it tried. SCOTUS isn't going there, in my opinion.

[Stay the course]

Using the filibuster to extend legitimate debate is one thing. I doubt if it was ever intended to allow permanent obstruction. I have read some persuasive arguments that the framers never intended unlimited debate to be an essential feature of the Senate. If so, the question then becomes, how do you determine where debate ends and obstruction begins? I think the Harkin-Lieberman proposal mentioned in the article would be a practical compromise. Maybe it should be revisited.

And I don't think SCOTUS wants to go there either.

[FirstFlaBn]

but it has been around since the nation's founding

It began in 1917 according to the Senate website.