ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

We've been blogging with this blog in the blogosphere for a few months now. We've had plenty of posts mentioning Rule 22, which is the famous rule that allows filibusters to be shut off by invoking cloture. There's also been a good bit of discussion here about Rule 31, which says that --- "when a nomination is confirmed or rejected" --- there must be a majority vote. But so far, I don't think we've mentioned Rule 19. Among other things, Rule 19 says this:

No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer....

This is the rule of "unlimited debate" that created a need for cloture in the first place. Apparently, the constitutional option will be closely connected with Rule 19, and will allow a Senator to be interrupted if the debate about an appellate court nomination is dilatory (i.e. if the Senator is just stalling), without any need to invoke cloture. It seems that the constitutional option would not change the text of Rule 19, and instead would create a precedent for interruptions consistent with Rule 19.

Notice that Rule 19 prohibits a Senator who is not presiding from interrupting another Senator without consent. Rule 19 does not, on its face, prohibit someone like the President of the Senate (who is not a Senator) from interrupting a Senator without consent. So, it would apparently be okay for the Senate to establish a new precedent that the presiding officer may end judicial nomination filibusters under certain conditions, for example on condition that a majority of the Senate does not object and on condition that there have already been 100 hours of debate.

If that's the way it goes, then it would not be a change to the text of the rules. It would instead be a change in precedent.