"If they disagree whether they held a hearing or not there is no need to consent to it."
What Senator has "agreed or disagreed" that they held a hearing on Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court?  None?  Because there was never a call or a schedule to hold a hearing?

Why are you still stuck on some arbitrary point about "agree" or "disagree?"  Did I miss a point about agree or disagreeing in the article or RS's comment about obstructionism as predicating on "agreeing or disagreeing" rather than HOLDING A HEARING IN THE FIRST PLACE?