To amend section 1464 of title 18, United States Code
congress.gov
congress.gov
When do we declare a state of idiocracy?
2) Congress can actually have more than one bill in progress at the same time.
3) "Not willing to appoint a judge you want rather than one they want" is not the same thing as "not having time to appoint a judge". At all.
2) yes, but this one is idiotic, as many are, but still.
3) the President's job is to appoint, Congresses job is to hold a hearing and approve. They have failed to do anything approve/deny, therefor in breach of their constitutional obligation. But you're right it's not about time, so much as politics, but it's a first in history that this congress failed to act. I mean hell, Thomas was a horrendous choice, but even after all the negative stuff about came out in congress they still approved him. What they do now is unpresidented.
No, there is no duty to "hold a hearing" mentioned in the Constitution. There isn't even a Constitutionally-mandated set number of justices on the court. There have been anywhere from six to ten in the past. Eight is just fine, from a Constitutional perspective.
The Senate has to give their consent. They're not giving it. That's their prerogative.
Also, there have been many cases of Supreme Court nominees not being approved, so this isn't even close to a "first in history".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...
Note in particular the cases where a vote on the nomination was "postponed indefinitely".
There have been many cases of nominees being rejected. Not being considered and voted on within a fairly short time window is far less common (in fact, at the time this particular nomination has reached, unprecedented.)
Not only have there been numerous cases of the vote being "postponed indefinitely" (and then not ever actually being held), there was at least one case where a sitting President (Millard Fillmore) proposed not one, but three separate nominees. The Senate took no action whatsoever on any of the three nominees.
Not the common case, perhaps. "Unprecedented"? Hardly.
Edit:
Here is the source cited by Wikipedia:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nomin...
Note that "no action" (i.e., exactly what's going on now) has been used 9 times, and "postponed" has been used 3 times. Between them, they add up to exactly the same number as the number of formal rejections (12). Using a parliamentary maneuver to avoid a formal confirmation vote does not only have plenty of precedent, it's historically been just as common as a formal rejection.
I would recommend that you try to recall exactly which media source gave you the impression that this procedure was "unprecedented", then place no further trust in that source, since it is clearly either dishonest or incompetent.