Con law 101 says that words shall be given their natural and usual definition. This has been affirmed by the Court many times. The word Consent by definition is an affirmative act and should be interpreted as such in any act of constitutional interpretation. Thus, refusing to provide consent by refusing to vote, or otherwise, is a withholding of consents. There is no case law or rational argument to be made whatsoever that refusing to manifest consent can be implied as an act of consent - that is a total absurdity.
The court is not bound to follow that principle. See Obamacare decisions.
The rest of your argument is just repetetive of the ordinary usage, but it is true in ordinary practice that silence can work as consent. If the Senate objects to the nominee, it can vote the nominee down.
Another way to look at the question is as one of shifting the presumption. The current presumption is that the nominee is rejected unless approved. Just switch the presumption to the reverse.
The vote is a good example, actually. Your refusal to vote does not relieve you of whatever obligations the government imposes on you. Vote (consent) or not, you are bound.
-- There is no case law or rational argument to be made whatsoever that refusing to manifest consent can be implied as an act of consent - that is a total absurdity. --
The law is not obliged to be rational, nor is obliged to avoid imposing absurdities.