Is this true: Senator Shelby was able to hold up all those nominations

[hedgehog]

not because of any Senate rules, but because of Senate custom?

It's what was reported on the Daily Show the other day. If so, the nominations could have been brought to the floor a year ago!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. You're catching on...

[DrToast]

2. The Senate is run under the assumptiont that everyone in it is an adult. Sadly, not the case today.

[SteppingRazor]

3. Yes, that's true. Senatorial holds are not technically rules.

They're acceded to because of the "collegial atmosphere" of the Senate. And, of course, if one were ever to be ignored, that would be the end of them entirely, and no Senator wants to give up his ability to hold a nomination.

[tritsofme]

4. The Senate primarily operates through unanimous consent

If a senator signals that he will oppose unanimous consent and force a cloture vote, this would trigger extended debate and more procedural hurdles.

Reid isn't exactly hamstrung by a hold, he can file for cloture and go through the days long process, however in this time the Senate cannot move on to other, likely more important business. So rather than passing a jobs bill, we are stuck for three days taking meaningless votes on a minor nomination who may end up being approved 100-0. This is why holds usually work.

I wish I could go into a little more detail, but I'm currently on my mobile.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Our country is almost ungovernable and the Senate is one of the main reasons

The founding fathers really screwed up when it came to the formation of the Senate. Just a handful of Senators can stop all legislation from going forward and states like Rhode Island have the same amount of votes as NY, California, Texas etc. :crazy: