I'm afraid that is exactly what the public perception is going to be. Honestly, I think the Senate was well within the law to seat Dana. I'm not sure it was the best decision though.
And, well we all know, in politics, perception is reality.
How can you say that when the Constitutional provision is so clear? Saying "it's up to the Senate to decide what the Constitution means" and then letting them decide something which is the opposite of what the Constitution says is wrong. That's exactly what the liberal judges do with the US Constitution. Even if the US Constituion gave the Supreme Court the sole authority to interpret the Constitution, Roe v. Wade would still be wrong.