But this isn't a big change? This is a bill with bipartisan support in congress, and it's my understanding that it has majority (but not 60%) support.

If this is difficult, then everything is difficult. How can a governing body being impeded on its most fundamental duties be considered a feature?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy, 1962

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/89101-those-who-make-peacef...

One interpretation of Kennedy's quote is that it's essentially a threat to violence by those who want some kind of radical change.

When made by the US president (to Latin America [1]), that probably needs to be taken seriously.

[1]: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-first-...

Even though I might be in favor of some variant of this bill, I'm really glad that it can't just be railroaded through without adequate debate. The "tyranny of the majority" can be a very real thing, and we need to be mindful that the tension between powers (separation of powers) was put there explicitly for this purpose -- to prevent a single powerful group from seizing control.

There's an argument, but not a strong one. What can be passed quickly can be amended or even repealed quickly. Many countries have done OK with that. Stasis is a bad strategy in such a quickly changing world, and the empirical results seem to support the theory. Built-in gridlock is dumb.