[xzins]

I disagree with that section applying to other already constitutionally spelled out methods for passing legislation.

For example, the constitution says the Senate counts the electoral votes for vice president and the candidate with a majority becomes the vice president. Imagine they apply their rules power to that and require no announcement of that winner until the Senate verifies it with a two thirds majority.

A majority vote for the passage of judges is the constitutional requirement. But that can’t move withouta 60% majority. I consider it a sleight-of-hand amending of the constitution.

The consequences are awful. Terrible decisions from former Congresses cannot be fixed with simple majorities

[AustinBill]

The real issue with the filibuster is that under current rules adopted in the 1970s Senators can "filibuster" without actually having to stand and talk for hours on end, thus making it far easier to kill legislation or appointments passively. The Wikipedia Article on this topic makes for fascinating reading.