No it doesn't. US Constitution Article 2 Section 2 Paragraph 2 He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The Constitution says nothing about how the Senate provides for advice and consent. Its up to the Senate to make its own rules. Blocking nominees in committees, through holds, or by filibuster are equally as Constitutional or unconstitutional.
Good stuff Giddyup and I agree. I primarily oppose the nuclear option not because it favors the Democrats or Republicans, but because I think it weakens the separation of powers by reducing the power of the Senate. I understand that in the future the Republicans may end up successfully a nominee proposed by a Democratic President (and I might even support a fillibuster on a nominee as liberal as Janice Brown and Pricilla Owen are conservative) but that's the nature of Senate and perfectly inline with checks and balances.
