The filibuster for the greatest part of its history was very infrequently used. It wasn't a threshold requirement for every piece of legislation.

If it were kept to that original idea ... something wielded, like powerful weaponry ... only when urgently needed, I might agree. But, when it's used as a blockade against everything, it's outlived the purpose that he's describing.

I never thought much of Thom Tillis.

Didn't think much of Mel, either.

What happens when the other side needs to be blocked from doing something radical? If you kill the filibuster process, it might come back to haunt you.