[Cboldt]

For each bill he asked the the bill be presented, then asked that they be considered as passed, with unanimous consent.

"Unanimous" is not the minority.

If the constitution mentioned votes, then the senate would be required to vote. But it doesn't.

Where the Constitution sets out a relationship between two branches, there is a requirement to do something, otherwise one branch or the other could be neutered. If the Senate refused to vote on the president's cabinet, for example, things would be bolluxed. But by your argument, the Senate has the power to do so. Or, if it doesn't do that outright, that it has the power to set the hurdle wherever it wants to.

The constitutionality argument is better fleshed out ...
here -> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402821/posts
which links to -> http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200505130811.asp

[SERKIT]

Obama & Durbin should split their vote on the judicial nominees so that the minority Republican in Illinois have their voice heard..(tongue planted firmly in cheek). Let's whine about having two Democrat senators and a Democrat Governor (who is fascinated with his genitals) and scream that our voices are not being heard.