Read Article II, Section 2, clause 2, and see if you can tease any other meaning from it. I think not.
The Dems in this administration have been engaging in "filibuster lite." They say they are going to filibuster, and the Repubs proceed as if there was talking all night. But the talking all night has not been done.
Billybob
Art. 2, Sect. 2, Clause 2:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Nothing there says anything about a simple majority, no matter how it's "teased". You argue that the Constitution requires a simple majority, but the Constitution is silent as to this issue. Read the entirety of Sect. I and tell me if you can "tease" the words "simple majority" out of it. You argue that Congress can't determine this issue, but then tell me that Congress has "concluded" that "all else is majority vote". It may be "done deal" via the SCOTUS, it may be a good idea, it may be the way it's been done for 200 years, but it's not in the Constitution textually, which was my original point. You can't have it both ways.