Simply requiring an actual, physical filibuster would weaken it's power while keeping it as a check on excess or an option for a principled stand/PR stunt.
In North America its often considered "crippling" children to give them too much help. I've seen it repeatedly, with some families giving children 3 months after graduation to begin paying rent.
People who can independently produce food have a form of real power that is very hard to resist.
The measures used to keep various peasant and serf classes under control were so extreme in history because if they became able to exercise that power the social order was overturned.
Because very few companies offer relocation. Living on welfare in a paid for trailer on land your ancestors lived on is much more appealing than moving without relocation for worse lifestyle in a rental in low wage work that will result in a lower effective income in a higher cost of living area.
People are often dumb, but they're not insane and over years they do respond to incentives.
Any time an activist organization presents evidence that the state doesn't contest I assume the whole case was set up by activists and the lawyers on both sides have an outcome that they both want but that democratic processes like election and debate won't create.
The number of grazers that are needed to maintain a prairie or plains ecosystem is far higher than most people assume, and vast spaces in the US are becoming forested because of lack of wildlands management.
I still know many of most of them, but they've been replaced as our economy and demographics change.