You know, the Constitutions does not give SCOTUS the power to decide the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative branch and signed by the executive. SCOTUS took that power unto itself. IIRC (I was just a little kid at the time) that was Marbury v. Madison.

Right now, the Judicial branch of our US government has far more power than either of the other two branches, in part because of that decision/precedent and in part because of the lifetime appointment of Federal justices. (Not sure how far down that extends, but it's not just for the SCOTUS.)

Someone said earlier that the confirmation of SCOTUS justices has not been politicized much till recent years. I believe such politicization has occurred as far back as the Adams administration, even though it's not the norm. What I think is exceptional about today's Senate is the use or threat of the filibuster to block the appointment of fully qualified Federal justices on purely political grounds.
As I understand it, the "advise and consent" clause does not preclude Senators from considering political orientation in voting yea or nay on a nominee. But I think the filibuster should be reserved for extreme cases and generally has been in the past.
Same should go for individual Senators blocking qualified nominees in committee from coming up for a vote.