THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS YES...
Of the handful of defenses of the filibuster in common circulation, the most popular is that it deserves deference as the product of design by the Founders. The filibuster was not created in the Constitution. Indeed, the Founders considered, and rejected, a routine supermajority requirement.
In Business, Supermajority vs. Simple Majority. A supermajority is generally used for major corporate actions while a simple majority is used for actions that do not result in a significant impact on the company. A supermajority typically requires anywhere from 67%-90% of shareholder approval before the action is approved.
Reflecting their disdain for a supermajority requirement, the Constitution called for its use only in limited circumstances: approving foreign treaties, constitutional amendments, and removal of an impeached official from office. The filibuster has changed repeatedly over the years. For the vast majority of its time, it was reserved by custom for rare instances of especially heated dissent (frequently by Southerners to block civil-rights bills.) The filibuster only came into its modern incarnation as a routine supermajority requirement during the Clinton era. Before then, legislation often passed through a majority vote.
If the Filibuster is so great, why have NONE of the 50 States copied it in their Own State Senates?
James Madison wrote:
"In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority."
Alexander Hamilton argued:
“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. … If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, … Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.”
Of course, the common fallacy that the Senate has always had a filibuster resembling the current version — or even a filibuster at all — is not the only argument for keeping it. But the fact it’s repeated so often reveals the low quality of justification its advocates are able to muster.
Give the people back their voice, 51 is Fair, simple majority over supermajority, pressure your Senators to END THE FILIBUSTER. U.S. Senate: Senators