There is perhaps an argument to be made about the majority not riding roughshod over the minority, but in this case the threshold for a blocking minority was just too small.
Here's what one guy who had to miss the Constitutional convention because he was serving his nation abroad had to say:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." (Thomas Jefferson)
This is true only for very bizarre definitions of "never".
> Until the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913 Senators where picked by the States.
That's pretty good evidence that from 1913 on, the Senate was meant to be a democratically elected body.
However, this sets a very convenient precedent to expand the new rules for legislation should a caucus ever want it badly enough.
1) The Senate is a majority body, but it requires a 60 vote (i.e. 60%) threshold to cut off debate and force a vote on a bill; otherwise, debate continues indefinitely.
2) In practice, this obviously can lead to the Senate becoming a supermajority body if filibusters are routinely exercised. In the last 5-10 years, this has become the case. For instance, this is an example of a bill that "failed" despite receiving a 54-46 vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04...
3) This rule change would only apply to presidential appointments. The 60-vote threshold would remain in place for other bills.