They also prove too much. If a 60 vote supermajority is necessary to preserve the sanctity of the Senate, then why not a 67 vote supermajority? or a 75 vote supermajority?
The actual effect of the filibuster in the modern, partisan Senate is to neuter it as an effective lawmaking or oversight body and turn it into an almost insurmountable veto point. It makes Congress weaker and the executive stronger.
If not for Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart, then (at the risk of being unfairly dismissive) I don’t think people would have such warm feelings about the filibuster.
I mean, this is just the thing! The Senate *was* designed to be a counter-majoritarian institution but that was in relation to the House, and this was accomplished by indirect election by state legislatures, staggered elections and 6-year terms.
Should be said again and again that no one at the 1787 convention imagined a Senate that would operate on a *routine* supermajority requirement, as evidenced by the fact that they explicitly spelled out those circumstances where supermajorities were needed.
Half the reason we have the Constitution to begin with was the fact that the Confederation Congress operated on a supermajority requirement for its essential functions, like taxation and appropriations.
