[Bruce Campbells Chin]

This is a terrible argument. The Constitution requires not just the advice of the Senate, but it's consent before the President may "appoint" a judge. If the Senate does not act, it has not consented.

That's irrefutable.

[Bubba_Leroy]

If the Senate does not act, it has not consented.

You are absolutely correct. Nothing in the Constitution requires a Senate hearing or vote. Rather, the Constitution specifically gives each house of Congress the right to make its own rules.

The Senate can sit on any nomination until the nominee grows mold if it so chooses. Just ask any of the Bush judicial nominees that the Senate Democrats refused to ever allow a hearing or a vote.

[Cboldt]

Nothing in law is irrefutable, or durable.