I hear that, I just think in the long run, it concedes too much to the Senate. The Senate can make him think hard by rejecting the nominee. I don't want a minority of Senators standing in the way of the power granted to the President under the Constitution. If a minority of Senators has the power to block one or five or twenty nominees, then that same power can be used to impose a supermajority requirement on all of them, with the only balance being the political fallout.
I know this issue has been growing to a head for some years. Maybe a Constitutionally principled solution won't be accepted in practice. And I agree that saving face is a powerful motivator. But some of these folks are dug in real hard, and somebody is going to lose some amount of face, even if the "nuclear option" isn't triggered by an objection to vote on a nominee.
As for the vaunted minority voice, it can exercise itself in the field of legislation. That is the province of Congress. They can exercise in the entire field of Article I, and it is a big field indeed. "How much land does a man need," I ask, "How much land does a man need?"
However, I'm not speaking of a gentleman's agreement. I'm still talking about changing the rules, and doing so through the use of heavy artillery. I think you understand this.
There would be no way to block 1, 5, or 20 of the president's nominees indefinitely IF the president were really determined to see them through. In some ways, it would be a way for the president to save face if something embarrassing did come up.
Also, though, it would make end of presidential term nominations subject to the stall. Any rejections would have to take place prior to the end of approximately his 3rd year.