The filibuster is a modern conception, the founders didn’t conceive of it. So resting it on Fed. 10 grounds isn’t really indicative of anything. Also, I tend not to rest my laurels on the ideas of imperfect men who held humans as chattel. I also find it to be loosely analogous as Fed. 10 is more about factionalism and why it’s dangerous, aka why political parties are dangerous. The founders wouldn’t find anything about our system efficient, which is why they gave us mechanisms to allows for the government to change its contract with the governed through time. The constitution was never meant to be as static as it has been theorized by originalists, but then how could a legal philosophy conveniently developed in the after math of both Roe and the Civil Rights Act operate without trying to tie itself to some sort of legitimate source and not just an ideological movement in search of a legal philosophy.

You’re naive if you think that an intolerant bunch, which advocates for violence (Jan 6, ballot watchers armed with semi automatic rifles, the beating of the speakers husband in his own home). You’re incorrectly asserting that Antifa is associated with a major political party, they are not. Democrats do not condone them or accept them or their legitimacy so they’re just serving as your boogeyman at this point. You can interchange BLM because you’ve been force fed hot words that make you think you’re making a point when you aren’t doing anything of the sort. Especially considering that BLM doesn’t condone violence or advocate for it.

I’m not ok with political violence, what I’m also not ok with is tying these groups to some sort of political party or candidate. It’s a false equivalency. Your right wingers are actually associated with the party, Antifa doesn’t affiliate with any political party or movement—they simply oppose fascism.