Thread by @jiwallner

Senate Republicans can limit how long Democrats can obstruct Trump's nominees simply by enforcing the Senate's existing rules and practices.

In recent years, the Senate almost always schedules votes by filing cloture on the underlying question or by unanimous consent. But senators also have other ways to trigger votes.

The Senate’s precedents stipulate, "when a Senator yields the floor, and no other Senator seeks recognition, and there is no order of the Senate to the contrary, the Presiding Officer must put the pending question to a vote.”

Senate leaders tell rank-and-file senators to suggest the absence of a quorum (put the Senate in a quorum call) because the Presiding Officer can't call a vote when the Senate is in a quorum call.

By placing the Senate in a quorum call, leaders maintain control over what happens on the floor because it takes unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call and because the Presiding Officer can't call an unplanned vote during a quorum call.

Senators already nuked the filibuster for judicial and executive branch nominees. That means it only takes a simple majority of senators (typically 51) to end debate by invoking cloture.

And senators nuked Rule 22's post-cloture time for nominees, reducing the maximum amount of time for most noms to a few hours from 30 hours.

Democrats can still obstruct by forcing the GOP to file cloture (even though invoking cloture requires only a simple majority of senators to vote yes). And they can force Republicans to invoke cloture and vote to confirm the nominees using a roll call vote instead of a voice vote

Roll call/recorded votes take time. Voice votes are quick. They also force Republicans to show up and vote for minor nominees, frustrating them.

But Democrats can do all this only because Republicans first ask unanimous consent to schedule votes on all of these nominees and then file cloture on each one of them when Democrats object.

Republicans should instead force Democrats to stand and speak on the floor on each nominee. Whenever a Democrat stops speaking and another Democrat doesn't start, the Presiding Officer must call a vote on the nominee under the Senate's existing rules and practices.

Adopting this approach forces Democrats to bear most of the costs of continued obstruction. They must stand and speak instead of showing up to vote. They must stand and speak to delay minor nominees that they may not object to.

And by standing and speaking, they individually align themselves very directly with the obstruction, giving their constituents an opportunity to hold them accountable for it (to either reward or punish them).

By adopting this approach, Republicans also pressure internal fissures in the Democratic caucus as more moderate establishment-minded Democrats will soon tire of the approach and more liberal members will argue that they need to keep at it.

And an internally divided opponent is always better than a unified opponent in Senate debates.

The Senate typically