Senate Votes on Judicial Nominees: Advice and Consent Archive

This content is for informational and educational purposes only and is not legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading or using this article. Federal, state, and local rules may differ and may change without notice. A qualified professional can review specific circumstances. The author and publisher assume no liability for actions taken based on this content.

Key Facts

Federal level: The Appointments Clause requires the President to nominate Supreme Court justices and other officers while the Senate provides advice and consent for appointment.
Federal level: Senate confirmation for nominations flows from the constitutional advice-and-consent framework described by Congress’s official constitutional materials and Senate education pages.
Federal level: The Senate’s nominations overview says most federal judicial nominees are routinely confirmed, while some fail to receive action or are rejected by the Senate.
Federal level: The Senate adopted precedents in the 2010s that allowed a simple majority to end debate on nominations, while CRS explains that the scope differs for Supreme Court nominations versus other nominations.
Federal level: CRS describes a 2013 reinterpretation that lowered the cloture threshold for nominations other than to the Supreme Court to a simple majority of those voting, enabling an up-or-down confirmation vote.
Federal level: CRS describes cloture timing for nominations—after a cloture motion is filed under Rule XXII, a vote occurs after two days of Senate session, and then the Senate votes on the pending question after no more than 30 hours of consideration with final approval by simple majority.
Federal level: CRS describes a 2017 reinterpretation that allows a majority of Senators voting, with a quorum present, to invoke cloture for U.S. Supreme Court nominations.
Federal level: Senate Standing Rules materials describe the formal confirmation question as “Will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?” for nominations proceeding to the confirmation vote.

Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.

Contents

The archive title and the federal law question it points to
The constitutional baseline for federal judicial nominations
Judicial nominees and why Senate outcomes can differ from “vote for everyone”
How Senate debate rules can shape whether a nomination reaches a vote
The 2013 precedent for nominations other than Supreme Court
The 2017 precedent for Supreme Court nominations
A quick comparison of the cloture paths described by CRS
The formal confirmation question and where it appears in Senate rules text
Federal versus state judicial systems where confusion often starts
What this archive recovery can and cannot change
Sources

The archive title and the federal law question it points to

This archive recovery targets an ABA Now post titled “judicial nominees deserve votes,” but the original legacy page text could not be accessed from the provided legacy URL during this research run, so the entry does not quote the ABA post.

The legal question underneath the archive framing involves federal constitutional advice and consent and Senate procedures that determine whether a nomination reaches a vote, including how debate can be ended.

Another related archive item that reflects ABA-era discussion of the courts is Justice Anthony Kennedy speech at ABA annual meeting.

The constitutional baseline for federal judicial nominations

Federal judicial nominations sit inside the Appointments Clause framework. Congress’s Constitution Annotated explains that the President “shall nominate” judges of the supreme Court and that the appointments occur “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” (See Appointments of Justices to the Supreme Court | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress for the clause.)

The Senate’s advice-and-consent background page describes that the advice-and-consent nomination structure gave the Senate a formal role in confirmations. (See Advice and Consent: Nominations.)

Judicial nominees and why Senate outcomes can differ from “vote for everyone”

Even within the advice-and-consent framework, Senate outcomes do not always look the same for every nominee. The Senate’s nominations overview says that the President nominates federal judges and that “the vast majority are routinely confirmed,” while a “small but sometimes highly visible number of nominees fail to receive action or are rejected by the Senate.” (See About Nominations.)

That matters to the archive theme because it shows that Senate procedural outcomes can include results other than a straightforward up-or-down vote on the confirmation question.

How Senate debate rules can shape whether a nomination reaches a vote

Senate materials on filibusters and cloture describe how the Senate can use cloture to end debate and proceed to a vote. The Senate’s historical overview states that the Senate adopted new precedents in the 2010s that allowed a simple majority to end debate on nominations. (See About Filibusters and Cloture: Historical Overview.)

CRS connects that broad shift to specific Rule XXII reinterpretations, explaining how cloture can change whether the Senate ends debate and moves toward a confirmation decision.

The 2013 precedent for nominations other than Supreme Court

CRS’s report on the November 21, 2013 “Nuclear” proceedings describes a 2013 Senate reinterpretation of cloture thresholds for nominations other than to the Supreme Court. CRS states that “the new precedent lowered the vote threshold … from three-fifths of the Senate to a simple majority … thereby enabling … an ‘up-or-down’ vote on confirming a nomination.” (See Majority Cloture for Nominations (R43331).)

CRS also describes timing. It states that a “cloture motion filed on a nomination under Rule XXII receives a vote after two days of Senate session,” and that after cloture is invoked, the Senate votes on the pending question “after no more than 30 hours of consideration,” with final approval by simple majority. (Id.)

The 2017 precedent for Supreme Court nominations

CRS’s short report on Supreme Court nominations describes how the Senate applied majority-cloture to that category. It states that “On April 6, 2017, the Senate reinterpreted Rule XXII to allow a majority of Senators voting, a quorum being present, to invoke cloture on nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court.” (See Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations (R44819).)

In other words, CRS describes a category-specific reinterpretation for Supreme Court nominations that changes how the Senate can reach a vote after debate is ended through cloture.

A quick comparison of the cloture paths described by CRS

CRS’s two reports describe different scopes for the majority-cloture reinterpretations, rather than a single, uniform rule for every nomination type.

Topic	CRS-described scope	CRS-described cloture threshold effect	Practical effect described by CRS
Nominations other than Supreme Court	2013 reinterpretation	Lowered from three-fifths to a simple majority of those voting	Enables an up-or-down confirmation vote after the cloture and post-cloture steps described by CRS
Supreme Court nominations	2017 reinterpretation	Allows a majority of Senators voting with quorum present to invoke cloture	Enables the Senate to proceed toward confirmation votes after majority-cloture is invoked

For the underlying procedural effects and timing described above, see Majority Cloture for Nominations (R43331) and Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations (R44819).

The formal confirmation question and where it appears in Senate rules text

When a nomination reaches the confirmation stage in the Senate rules materials, the confirmation question appears in the rules text as: “Will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?” (See STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE (113th Congress Document 113-18).)

Because Senate rules can vary by edition and Congress, the quoted language is best treated as the standing rules formulation reflected in the rules document that contains the quotation.

Federal versus state judicial systems where confusion often starts

Federal judicial nominations involve the federal constitutional advice-and-consent framework and Senate procedures. (See Appointments of Justices to the Supreme Court | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.)

State judicial selection is governed by state law, and the details vary by state. As a result, statements about Senate voting and cloture mechanics can be easy to overgeneralize if they get treated as instructions for state courts or state judges instead of federal confirmation procedure.

What this archive recovery can and cannot change

The archive title “judicial nominees deserve votes” reflects a policy-minded question about whether nominations move to a confirmation vote. Federal constitutional structure and Senate procedural tools provide the framework in which that question becomes concrete: the Constitution establishes advice and consent as the appointment mechanism, and CRS describes Rule XXII reinterpretations that change cloture thresholds and related timing for covered categories of nominations.

Sources like Senate educational pages and CRS reports do not replace the Senate’s day-to-day application of its rules, but they show why disputes about “deserve votes” often turn on debate and cloture thresholds rather than on whether advice and consent exists as a constitutional role.