1

I was interested to learn more about the procedures for impeachment and while going through the Senate rules, I found it odd that it stated that any articles of impeachment that are sent to the Senate have to be answered by 1pm the next day and that all other business of the Senate stops (including SCOTUS confirmations). In theory, couldn't the Democrats from the House just sent over articles of impeachment every day, thereby clogging the works? I realize that it would only take a rules change to fix this oversight, or am I missing something else. There is no Constitutional requirement for the House to only send over articles it has good faith in, so it could have been impeachment for any and every person in office.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/3_1986SenatesImpeachmentRules.pdf seems to state that once the articles are presented to the Senate they have no choice but to start a trial.

Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.

Rick Smith
  • 35,501
  • 5
  • 100
  • 160
JJ Hill
  • 27
  • 2
  • 4
    There is no requirement for the Senate to take obviously trolling impeachments seriously with a hearing. They can vote them down just as fast as the House can send them. – SurpriseDog Oct 27 '20 at 21:58
  • 7
    Strange as it may seem, at some point the parties are going to have grow up and work together again. If every little nook and cranny is used to disrupt things by one party, it can also be done by the other so the advantage would be fleeting and the only result would a steadily less governable country. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Oct 27 '20 at 22:02
  • 5
    There is no requirement for the Senate to take serious impeachments seriously. – Jontia Oct 27 '20 at 22:21
  • @Jontia And even more importantly, none to take non-serious impeachments seriously. – David Hammen Oct 27 '20 at 22:26
  • 3
    I wouldn’t say it’s a duplicate, but the answers to this question answer this one as well, namely that the Senate could just ignore impeachment if they wanted to: https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/45989/19301 – divibisan Oct 27 '20 at 22:34
  • 1
    If the House had done so, the optics of this would have been very bad. In Not just very bad but beyond awful bad. Such a maneuver would have been transparently political. It would have risked Biden's apparent lead in the Presidential election and the apparent odds of flipping the Senate. It might have been such a very bad maneuver that it could have risked the Democratic majority in the House, which is the one sure thing in the upcoming election (assuming the House does nothing as bad as this). – David Hammen Oct 27 '20 at 23:24
  • How would this be any different from a filibuster then? Those are political stunts, for lack of a better word. It is just holding up the Senate using procedural tricks. – JJ Hill Oct 28 '20 at 16:40
  • 1
    @DavidHammen How is it any different than the senate confirming a new justice 8 days before the election when they refused to do so 4 years earlier when there was still around 10 months to the election when a new justice was nominated? – Joe W Oct 28 '20 at 16:41
  • JoeW: It's different because no House in history has ever submitted impeachment papers for the purpose of screwing up the Senate's schedule. While confirming judges and SCOTUS justices during election season and blocking a vote on confirmation both have been done often in the past. The historical pattern for open seats before an election is that if the same party controls both Senate and POTUS, there's a confirmation vote. And if power is split, there is no confirmation vote. 2016 and 2020 have not been an exception to this pattern. – Ben Voigt Oct 28 '20 at 17:05
  • @JoeW Look at this from a Democratic perspective. What the Republicans have done has perhaps fired up the Republican base, but they are already fired up. On the other hand, this Republican action has riled up the Democratic base and has turned independents away from voting Republican. There is no reason for the Democrats to do something in response that (a) wouldn't work, and (b) would turn off everyone except the Democratic base. – David Hammen Oct 28 '20 at 18:52
  • 1
    @BenVoigt What about the Senate refusing to hold confirmation hearings because they want to hold out for the chance that their party will take control of the white house and they get to chose who is a judge? How many Obama nominations did not even receive a hearing? – Joe W Oct 28 '20 at 19:15
  • @JoeW: Again, that is consistent with the historical pattern -- when control is split, 90% of the time nominees in an election year don't get a confirmation hearing. Both parties do that to the other party's nominee every chance they get. – Ben Voigt Oct 28 '20 at 19:28
  • @JoeW: Another way it would be different is that the House would have to make false official statements to deliver such sham impeachment articles. There's no such activity taking place when the Senate elects to vary the speed with which it performs its duty to advise and consent, how anyone could consider the two in any way comparable is beyond me. Two entirely different actions are not comparable simply because both promote a political agenda. – Ben Voigt Oct 28 '20 at 19:34
  • 1
    @BenVoigt No, there is no historical pattern of refusing to hold hearing for nominations that started during the Obama years. Sure in the past they have tried to stop someone from getting confirmed but they have at least held the hearings. – Joe W Oct 28 '20 at 19:46
  • @BenVoigt There are many things the president could be impeached for without making false official statements ... – Azor Ahai -him- Oct 29 '20 at 00:06
  • @AzorAhai--hehim: We're talking about the House getting papers over to the Senate on a daily basis. That precludes any investigation, so even if the charges were true (most are) and even if they rise to the level of impeachable offenses (most are not), the House could not truthfully certify the results of their investigation. Remember that the House's vote is far less meaningful than the evidence they present to the Senate -- the Senate actually "tries the case". – Ben Voigt Oct 29 '20 at 15:13

2 Answers2

5

The Senate can choose to disregard the rules and if a majority supports that decision there is nothing that can be done to override it. The U.S. Senate did so at one other point, at least (the quorum required for a committee vote), in this particular nomination.

ohwilleke
  • 79,130
  • 11
  • 224
  • 303
2

No, [House} Democrats1 could not have stalled the confirmation by using impeachment.

The exception, "unless otherwise ordered by the Senate", means the Senate could, "after the trial shall commence" delay any impeachment trial(s) until after confirmation.

——
1 The House impeaches, the Senate tries the impeachment.

Rick Smith
  • 35,501
  • 5
  • 100
  • 160