Filibustering the Constitution

Mickey Kaus:

The Constitution does say "advise and consent," but as Weisberg notes it doesn't say anything about filibusters. That leaves the Senate to structure the "advise and consent" process as it sees fit.

Huh? I'd say it requires the Senate to vote on the nominees.

Since when has "consent" been defined as requiring a super-majority? Until the whole Senate votes, it has not consented for not consented. The distinction between this function and filibustering legislation is that advice and consent is an explicit Constitutional function, which requires a response from the Senate, not delays and refusing to act because some Senators are opposed to a nominee. Advice and consent requires an up or down vote by the whole Senate. I don't think a committee, sub-committee or even individual senators should be allowed to prevent a nominee from being voted on. They're entitled to make their objections in debate, but filibusters to prevent such votes should be disallowed. Republicans shouldn't do this kind of stuff either.