Inspired by the “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Tuberville?” thread, I’d be grateful if someone could explain to me how it works? It’s almost always presented as it being a “request” that a senator makes to the Majority Leader. But a request, by definition, can be summarily denied. What is it about Senate Hold “requests” that removes that as a possibility?
TIA
It’s not just a non-binding request; it’s a consequence of a rule in the standing rules (Rule VII section 2) that says that motions can only be brought to the floor with the unanimous consent of the Senate. As long as nobody objects, unanimous consent is assumed, but an objection removes unanimity.
As @Schnitte says, because Senate processes are so cumbersome, many (but not all) motions in the Senate are considered through unanimous consent. Unless objection is raised by any one Senator when the motion is made, consent is assumed. To keep Senators from having to constantly be on the floor to be ready to raise an objection should the motion they’re worried about be raised, the Senate has evolved a tradition (the hold) whereby a Senator can inform his or her party leader (i.e. the Majority or Minority Leader) that they object to the motion being considered. That leader or their floor designee will then object if that motion is brought up (even if the Leader may have no personal objection to the motion). Because everyone knows this will happen, the motion is most often not made.
It is not in the rules, and technically the party leader could decline to object (there was a minor foofaraw a couple years ago when permanent daylight savings time passed the Senate by unanimous consent due to miscommunication over who was going to object). But the hold is a deeply ingrained tradition of the chamber, employed at times by members of both parties. Many Senators would be loath to create the precedent that a clearly expressed hold can be ignored.
In Tuberville’s case, he has registered with Mitch McConnell that he will object to bringing the nomination of any military officer to the floor. Because they’re usually non-controversial, officer nominations are often passed by the Senate en masse through unanimous consent. Absent that UC, they would need to be brought to the floor individually, a process that would take months of floor time for all 400 nominees. Democrats on the Senate Rules Committee have crafted a special resolution to allow a one-time effort to pass officers en masse without unanimous consent. It would still be subject to filibuster, and so would require all Democrats (and Independents) and nine Republicans to pass.
That is not correct. Rule VII(2) says unanimous consent is needed to introduce business at certain times in the business day. What my understanding is is that Tuberville is in effect using his privilege to require a Division of the Question which means every appointment must be voted on separately. As it is the right of any member as an individual to divide the question, it takes unanimous consent to vote on the appointments together which is almost always done.
Note: you could also divide out just one appointment. Suppose Senator Whitey Oldman wants a separate vote on Libby Woke to be appointed to admiral. Sen Oldman could demand a division to vote on her separately.
I don’t think it’s a Division of the Question issue per se - division votes almost never happen in the Senate. I think it’s the other way around – nominations are presumed to be considered and voted on individually, therefore a motion to circumvent that and vote en bloc can only be adopted by unanimous consent.
I’d have to review the Senate Rules on that, However the way you describe it, the motion to package them together is a regular main motion requiring a majority vote to pass or at worst an motion to Suspend the Rules requiring a 2/3 vote. Either way, no one senator could stand in the way. But again I’d have to check because the Senate does have some unusual rules.
Unfortunately, I know just enough about Senate rules to be a danger to myself and others. I did find a CRS report on en bloc nominations that says they can only be considered through unanimous consent, although it does not elaborate on why.
Entirely possible. They do make up bizarre parliamentary rules just because “We’re the Senate.” But net effect is the same.
flurb’s link led to another link CRS Insight IN12200, Holds on Nominations and folks it’s worse than we thought when the do not get unanimous consent.
• The Senate approves a non-debatable motion to proceed to executive session to take up a
nomination on the Executive Calendar. (Normally this motion is approved immediately
without a roll call vote—but with sufficient support, a Senator could secure a roll call
vote on this question. The motion requires a simple majority to pass.)
• The majority leader (or his designee) files cloture on the nomination. (The cloture motion
asks if the Senate wishes to bring debate to a close on the nomination.) Absent unanimous
consent to alter this “ripening period,” the Senate must wait two session days before
voting on cloture. The Senate can conduct other business during these two days, and
usually does.
• Two days of session later, the Senate votes on cloture. The vote is required to be a roll
call vote under the rule. If a majority of Senators voting support cloture, then cloture is
said to be invoked, and further consideration of the nomination is limited.
• The Senate conducts post-cloture debate on the nomination. For all but the highestranking nominations, the maximum time for consideration of a nomination after cloture is
invoked is two hours. Once cloture is invoked on a matter, the Senate can consider other
business during the post-cloture period only by unanimous consent.
• After post-cloture debate time expires, or when no Senator seeks to discuss the
nomination further, the Senate votes on the nomination. This can be by voice vote, but
with sufficient support a Senator could secure a roll call vote on the question of
confirming the nomination. The motion requires a simple majority to pass.
• To make the confirmation vote final, and in order to immediately return the approved
nomination to the President, the Senate routinely takes another parliamentary step by
unanimous consent. To prevent the possibility of a re-vote on the nomination, the Senate
tables (meaning, adversely disposes of) a motion to reconsider (a motion that would
allow a re-vote). (Absent unanimous consent, the Senate could vote to table the motion to
reconsider.)
The Senate often confirms nominations without unanimous consent by using the cloture process just
described. Confirming a large number of nominations using the cloture process could take considerable floor time
No wonder Schumer couldn’t just bring up each nomination for a quick up-down vote.
Yeah, this is why the “just keep the Senate in session and force votes on all the nominees” strategy won’t work. It would take months. And since, “once cloture is invoked on a matter, the Senate can consider other business during the post-cloture period only by unanimous consent,” the Senate would be unable to advance any other business like passing the federal budget or confirming the hundreds of other pending nominations for federal judges and non-military executive offices.