No sorry but the rhetoric and stillness on this is all coming from the left. I know the left of center people are more about feelings than facts but it does matter what the document actually say and it doesn't matter what you think it should say.

I did say you can make the argument that they should give him a vote but what is truly silly is the same people who refused to vote on Bush nominees screaming and wailing the republicans refuse to have votes on a Obama nominee. Suddenly blocking appointments is sin and probably racist so lets not talk about rhetoric and talking points.

Here is how simply it is.

The president nominates and then the Senate decides how and if they will approve. While I agree that you are completely justified to make the argument that they should give him a vote you cannot make the argument that moondog and a horde of mouth breathers on the left has made that there is a Constitutional obligation to give him a vote. The Constitution clearly gives the Senate the authority to decide that not the president and not the media not even far left law professors. That is not silly rhetoric or splitting hairs it is looking at what the actual law is an not just making it up. Your example is more like the kid in the backseat crying because his sister is singing a song he decided was his song. You can't just make up rules and then whine that others don't follow them.