Bad idea.
There shoud be NO recognition of an ultra-constitutional parlimentary "trick" to halt judicial nominations.
The Constitution provides for a simple majority, 51 votes, to confirm a justice. THAT should be what is adhered to.
Of course it is. But this would be a public relations trick.
I wonder. What if 51 or more senators wrote letters to the White House stating their support for a judicial candidate? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say there has to be a floor vote. It only say the President has to have the advice and consent of the Senate. If an absolute majority of the Sentate writes letters to the President supporting the confirmation of a nominee, is that not enough to satisfy the requirements of "advice and consent".
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,
"The Constitution provides for a simple majority, 51 votes, to confirm a justice. THAT should be what is adhered to."
Actually, that isn't necessarily true. The Constitutions states that the senate gives "advice and consent". It does NOT say they vote. SO, some senators, (and I would argue that a majority would not be necessary) could merely state verbally or in writing that they consent to bringing the candidate in. I think a case could be made that if only one Senator consented, a President could go ahead with the appointment.