Do impeachment proceedings take precedence over Supreme Court nominations?

[needledriver]

It looks like the Senate may not be able to bring a Supreme Court nomination up for a vote before the election.

Let’s say that the election goes well and all three branches of government will be blue next year - and Mitch McConnell remains determined to have a vote on a new Justice during the lame duck session.

Let’s say that (for legal or procedural reasons) impeachment takes precedence over all other Senate business.

Would it be possible to run out the clock with impeachment proceedings until the new Senate is sworn in?

[TruckFump]

1. House does articles of impeachment...the Senate confirms SCOTUS nominees.

Don't think there's a chance...unless it is Moscow Mitch that the House issues articles against.

[needledriver]

4. Yes, exactly. The Democrats control the House.

I'm sure there are still plenty of impeachable offenses that Nancy Pelosi could bring against *45, and I am confident the House would vote to bring Articles of Impeachment.

My question is: would voting on these Articles take precedence over all other Senate business? Could the House Democrats bring, if necessary, successive Articles of Impeachment to the Senate - and prevent the Senate from confirming a new Justice until the next session?

[TruckFump]

11. Not enough time, IMO, to get the Articles done and sent to the Senate...

...to go against tRump, Mitch, etc., and throw a wrench into their SCOTUS appointment.

The Senate can hold up the vote.

IMO, there is not enough time.

[2naSalit]

2. Impeachment trials,

Take precedence over all other Senate business so yes. It may not apply to any other than presidential trials but in theory...

[drray23]

3. McConnel decides when to bring it to the floor once its out of the house. nt

[tritsofme]

5. McConnell could dispose of articles of impeachment the same day they were delivered.

Probably not a particularly effective stalling tactic.

[needledriver]

6. The last trial lasted two weeks and six days.

I assume that the vote would be for acquittal. Would lame duck Republican Senators be free to vote their conscience, or would they still be in lockstep?

Either way, the goal is to occupy the Senate's calendar with business that forces aside a vote to confirm a Justice.

[tritsofme]

7. It lasted two weeks only because McConnell allowed it to last that long.

He could have the Senate vote on a motion to dismiss immediately. He also has other options to dispose of the articles quickly.

[kentuck]

8. But Pelosi could send over the Articles on her schedule, right?

I think she held the Articles several weeks on the last impeachment?

[tritsofme]

9. Holding on to the articles in the House does nothing to interfere with Senate business.

I just don't think the impeachment process is an effective stall tactic.

It would be interesting if Democrats decided to boycott the Senate, save for one member, who sits there and objects to every unanimous consent motion, and force Senate Republicans to maintain a quorum on their own.

[needledriver]

10. I like that.

I'm clearly not a Constitutional scholar - I am just looking for a way to play hardball with these assholes.