From the source you provided:
"From 1917, when the cloture rule was put in place, to 1970, there were fewer than 60 cloture motions; the most notable filibusters where those blocking civil rights legislation.29 Between 1970 and 2000, cloture votes increased to an average of about 17 per year. Finally, starting in the 2000s, minority parties in the Senate began to routinely filibuster substantive legislation proposed by the other party. During this period, from 2000 to 2018, an average of 53 cloture votes were held every year, with a continuing trend upward."
It states that "the most notable filibusters where [sic] those blocking civil rights legislation".
By my count, according to this source, there were 60 + (30x17) + (18x53) filibusters. That equals
60 + 510 + 954 or 1524 cloture votes required to overcome a filibuster.
Claiming that Democrat filibusters to deny civil rights to minorities was the "main" use of the filibuster is laughable.
The idea that "Republicans forced one change by complety [sic] halted governemnt [sic]." Ignores the fact that divided government requires compromise. What this article characterizes as "obstruction" by Senate Republicans against President Obama's nominees were Republicans objecting to filling judicial vacancies on courts with less of a workload than others and putting up nominees of questionable qualifications.
Government wasn't "halted". Simply, nominees were held up for various reasons.
Republicans warned that when Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, invoked the "nuclear option" on Presidential nominees and federal judges they would regret it when Republicans were in the majority. It's disingenuous to cheer for rules changes when Democrats are in the majority and then not expect other rules changes (as was warned) when Democrats are in the minority.
It's pretty much the pot calling the kettle black when you claim Republicans "have no regard for tradition, fairness, democracy or rules. It's all about power."
Democrats invoked the nuclear option first. Democrats (like you) advocate for ending the filibuster. I've never heard Republicans calling for the same. Democrats have proposed stacking the Supreme Court. How do you reconcile those proposals with having a regard for "tradition, fairness, democracy or rules"?
I do not believe Republicans will move to end the filibuster when they take control of the Senate in 2022.
They realize the pendulum swings both ways and maintaining their majority in 2024 will be tenuous as they again will have to compete against Democrats aided by their allies in the media and Big Tech.
