This is going to get a little wonky, just to warn everyone from the start.

Earlier this year, after the new Congress was seated, there was a rhetorical push from Republicans lauding the sanctity of "regular order" for Congress to follow. The term was used constantly, although few outside the Beltway knew what they were talking about.

The movement to return to regular order was a reaction against the leadership of the House and the Senate essentially dictating what bills come to the floor with little opportunity for the rank-and-file to debate or amend. Republican lawmakers were calling for this sort of thing to end, hence their calls for returning to regular order.

Got all of that? Well, the other thing the Republicans were indicating -- although few remarked upon it at the time -- was their mistrust of their own leadership in Congress. Over in the Senate, of course, they had Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, to blame for introducing final versions of bills and stifling amendments or debate. But in the House, the cries for regular order were nothing short of a rebuke of Speaker John Boehner. They just don't trust Boehner because he occasionally actually passes bills into law using a majority of the votes in the House. This violates the House Republicans' self-imposed "Hastert Rule" that no bill shall arrive on the floor without first gaining a "majority of the majority" -- roughly 110-120 House Republicans supporting it, in other words.

So, because they didn't trust Boehner -- their own Speaker, mind you -- House Republicans loudly called for regular order to reign once again. Speaker Boehner shouldn't introduce bills after cutting some sort of deal they weren't privy to, and everybody should get a chance to have his or her say and suggest changes to the bill before the final vote.

What they really were calling for was to strengthen the committee chairs, in essence. "Regular order," the way they were using the term, meant "let the bills be written in committee, and then let them move to the floor of the chamber afterwards." This transfers power from Boehner, whom many House Republicans don't trust, to the more-trustworthy committee chairs. Fine and good. Hey, it's you guys' party, you can divvy up the power structure how you see fit. But regular order doesn't stop there.

Almost every bill of any consequence which emerges from Congress first starts as different bills from the House and Senate. But then -- as the regular order of things dictates -- what happens next is a committee is formed with members from both houses and both parties. This "conference committee" then hammers out a compromise between the House and Senate versions, which is acceptable enough to everyone concerned. Then this compromise bill goes through both houses once again, with the understanding that amending it is tantamount to killing it. In other words, an up-or-down vote is all the compromise legislation normally gets.

All of this, once again, is part of the regular order of moving bills through Congress.

But now House Republicans are showing their true colors. They are denouncing -- before the fact -- what nefarious things such conference committees might get up to. The first big issue where this arose was on the budget. Budget bills are moving in the background, although they're not on the front burner in the media or politically. But House Republicans began baldly stating a few months ago that they should refuse to form a conference committee with the Senate on the budget, because this might lead to a compromise they wouldn't like. I've heard this position of refusing to form a conference committee espoused on the recent farm bill as well. But the most recent example is on immigration.

Two very conservative writers -- Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry -- recently wrote to air their thoughts on immigration reform. They are, unsurprisingly, against the Senate bill. But here's how they end their essay (emphasis added):

House Republicans may wish to pass incremental changes to the system to show that they have their own solutions, even though such legislation is very unlikely to be taken up by the Senate. Or they might not even bother, since Senate Democrats say such legislation would be dead on arrival. In any case, House Republicans should make sure not to allow a conference with the Senate bill. House Republicans can't find any true common ground with that legislation. Passing any version of the Gang of Eight's bill would be worse public policy than passing nothing. House Republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart.

Calls to torpedo even the conference committee show a stunning lack of faith in their own party, it should be noted. Kristol and Lowry (and all the others calling for a refusal to even form such committees for any issue) are admitting their own terror at their own party leaders' weaknesses. Instead of a majority of Republicans in the House dictating America's policy, forming a conference committee means that three other groups get to have their say, too: House Democrats, and both the Republicans and the Democrats in the Senate. The term "checks and balances" springs to mind, in fact. On immigration, it's easy to see why they're terrified. Say the House passes some immigration bills. It doesn't even matter what is contained within them. John Boehner announces a conference committee, and names some hardline Republicans to sit on it, and he also names a moderate or two from his own party. Nancy Pelosi names some commonsense Democrats to the committee. The Senate will likely start their committee roster with the Gang of Eight members -- senators who have proven that they can reach compromise, and have proven their hearts are in the right place.

Count the votes in that committee. If they propose what is essentially the Senate bill (with a few bones tossed in from whatever the House passes, but with the pathway to citizenship still intact), then all the senators on the committee will vote for it as well as the House Democrats. The bill emerges from committee, and easily passes the Senate.

This is precisely what Kristol and Lowry are terrified of. Because then Boehner would really have no choice but to bring it to a vote in the House. With overwhelming Democratic support and a handful of moderate Republicans, the bill would pass and be sent to Obama's desk for his signature.

But they shouldn't be so scared. It's called "legislating." It's called doing your jobs as representatives of the people. It's also called regular order -- precisely what the same exact House Republicans began this year loudly demanding. Of course, it also means admitting that the Hastert Rule is, in fact, nowhere to be found within the Constitution, and admitting that one-half of one party in one house of Congress does not get a veto on what everyone else wants to get done. Calling for regular order at the start of the process and then calling to sabotage regular order at the end of the process is nothing short of hypocrisy. If we're going to have regular order and pass bills out of committee, fine. Then let's also stick to regular order and move to a conference committee when that part of the process is complete. It's the way Congress is supposed to work, after all -- whether you trust your own leadership or whether you trust Senate Republicans or not. Period.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant