This really isn’t a plausibly strategy. There are both parliamentary and practical obstacles. Let me explain.
First, the Senate operates under the presumption of a quorum. That is, they assume a quorum is present unless someone objects by noting that there is not. This lets them do all sorts of business with only a few members on the floor, usually by unanimous consent.
So, in the edge case, the Dems would at least need to put an objector on the floor to question the quorum. If the GOP knew this strategy was coming, they could put all 50 Members on the floor. The objector would be #51, and the could try to count the objector in the quorum call.
Of course, a Dem could go object to the lack of a quorum when almost no one as on the floor and then split, but that would probably allow the GOP to dispense with the quorum call by unanimous consent.
In effect, it seems very hard to deny a quorum in the Senate if the majority is *one* short, because you really need to stick around to place objections, but by sticking around you create a quorum. You could not answer the roll call, but you will ultimately be counted because...
Under the Constitution, Senators can be compelled to attend. Once there is found to be no quorum, the Senate can take measures—up to and including arrest—to bring Senators to the floor. This has been done numerous times in Senate history.
If you stick around to object, even if you fail to answer the roll call, they will “compel” your attendance and then just count you.
So the Dems would really have to flee DC to pursue this strategy. This creates lots of problems: first, if you flee DC with Senate in session, the majority could ignore the issue and start passing *lots* of stuff, because you have removed your ability to object/filibuster.
And it also really looks like a stunt. Every so often, some state legislators try this, fleeing to another state. It’s a circus, and public reaction to it can be really bad. Whatever the parliamentary merits, you can’t discount the public reaction to these sorts of things.
And that brings us to the bigger point: denying a quorum in the Senate is a potential political disaster for the Dems. Imagine that your strategy works, and you gum up the Senate next week by preventing a quorum. Hurrah! You have blocked judge Kavanaugh. Guess what?
You’ve also blocked the possibility of the FY19 approps bills passing. And you can be sure the first thing the majority is going to argue is that you are shutting down the government to block a judge. What are you going to do then? On 9/30?The politics of this are a nightmare.
And remember: you need *every single* Dem on board for this strategy. It’s just not realistic. Even if all 49 are against Kavanaugh (unlikely), no way all 49 are in favor of sticking their necks out on a stunt like this, with so much public opinion potential downside.
Also note that the Senate has been operating without McCain for months. This issue has been live since he went back to Arizona. In fact, if he dies, the quorum reduces to 50 (out of 99) until his appointed replacement is sworn in.
The bottom line: this strategy has the thinnest reed of plausibility to it, but it’s both procedurally almost impossible, and politically very dangerous. Therefore, the odds of the Dems trying it are basically zero. Not because they are cowards or dumb, but because it won’t work.
Others you may want to check on this: @ProfStevenSmith , @NormOrnstein, @bindersab, all of whom have written some variation of this tweetstorm in the past months, I believe.
Also, here’s an excellent @GregoryKoger column discussing more nuances of this. (A tweetstorm is a tough place to get into the details of the disappearing quorum and attendance/voting questions.)
vox.com/mischiefs-of-f…
vox.com/mischiefs-of-f…
