Yes, but that's not what happened in the salient case - they didn't say they believed the nominated judge was unsuitable and turned them down. They said it was inappropriate to even look at a nomination "so close" to the end of the president's term (an entire year).

>Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president

So the senate didn't give their consent, as is their right. But you think the reasoning (or, lets face it, excuse) behind withholding that consent was somehow unconstitutional?

It's not unconstitional. But neither is the proposal here. That's the problem: the rules allow a lot of things that are considered unfair and un-collegial. If that's successful, then eventually the tactics will be considered by the other side.

It's a political judgment call of whether it will be a net benefit to them. (My guess is that they'll conclude that packing the court is not but term limits for future nominations are.) But it will undoubtedly be constitutional -- and pushed as far as they think it can be.

That's true, but the statement I was addressing was

wether the party controlling the senate will grant the president his constitutional right to appoint a judge

Not granting someone their constitutional right can only be interpreted as claiming that doing so is unconstitutional.