I think doing away with the filibuser invites a situation where the majority can simply steamroller the minority, and that’s what the rule is there to prevent. The rule resists changing because most of the majority understands that one day the shoe will be on the other foot.
We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Mob rule is to be resisted.
That’s just my humble opinion. A good case can be made for keeping the filibuster for statutes and removing it for staffing the Executive branch. But I’m not convinced yet. If this ruling from the court (assuming it stands up in SCOTUS) that only candidates that are nominated during *the* recess can be recess appointed, then this filibuster rule needs to be considered.
Actually, the nominal function of cloture (and there is a parallel in Roberts Rules of Order) is to prevent the majority from denying a minority from being heard. Deliberative bodies are supposed to deliberate, argue, present arguments, and then VOTE. Majority rules.
The parallel from Robert's Rules of Order Online ...
There has been established as a compromise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the assembly the principle that a two-thirds vote is required to adopt any motion that suspends or modifies a rule of order previously adopted; or prevents the introduction of a question for consideration; or closes, or limits, or extends the limits of debate; or limits the freedom of nomination or voting; or closes nominations or the polls; or deprives one of membership or office.The senate's use of the cloture rule to effectively impose a supermajority requirement for passage is dysfunction.
The use of a supermajority to limit the minority's right to debate is common. When a cloture motion fails, the procedural meaning is not that the subject has been rejected. The procedural meaning is that debate remains open.