I have rejected that argument for years. The constitution spells out those votes that require greater than a majority. Manipulating language to create different legislative requirements on already spelled out constitutional processes is an attack on the constitution and a covert amending of it.
Can’t agree with that - as the vote is not actually on passage of any legislation - it is on their own internal rules of moving forward with procedures. It effectively does kill legislation by not allowing it to move forward, yes, but that is their right to set their own rules.
We’re already too far down the road to stop, maybe we could get off at the next exit after the vacancies are filled. The rules could be amended then.