OK, my bad. I would have to think that Orrin Hatch, who is, if nothing else, well versed on the Constitution, was trying to say that Filibusters of judicial nominees is not in keeping with the character or intent of the Constitution. The word UnConstitutional carries special weight these days, as half the laws passed by Congress are Dead Letter in the Circuit Courts.
I certainly agree with you there. I notice that the majority of discussion here at FR is actually argument about what a label means, or a jump to conclusion based on a label. "Unconstitutional" and "filibuster" being two such labels. "Conservative" being another one. ;-)
There is little effort to step back from the labels and attempt to get at the nub of the issue. Instead, the discussion circles around and around the meaning of the label.
In the matter of moving executive and judicial nominees "through the process," one way to frame the issue is to aske whether or not the Senate has a DUTY to vote, to conclusively dispose of the nomination.
...Orrin Hatch, who is, if nothing else, well versed on the Constitution, was trying to say that Filibusters of judicial nominees is not in keeping with the character or intent of the Constitution.