united-states us-constitution constitutional-law us-senate
How long can the Senate hold up nominations?
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article II, Section 2, of the US Constitution</a> states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law[.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Could the Senate legally just decide that no more appointees would be confirmed and positions left vacant, for a long period?  Are there limits on "long period?"   (A more extreme version of the question is <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/7188/could-the-senate-abolish-the-supreme-court">here</a>.)</p>

<p>This question is, of course, motivated by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/more-republicans-say-theyll-block-supreme-court-nomination.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">current happenings and statements</a> from the Senate Majority leader that "no Supreme Court nominee from President Obama would be considered."</p>

<p>The Senate is under no <strong>Legal</strong> obligation to consider any particular nomination in any way. Some people have asserted that there is a constitutional duty imposed by the phrase &quot;advise and consent&quot; but that view has never commanded significant support, nor has any court that I know of included such a view in a decision. In general, US courts would consider this a <strong>political question</strong> and would dismiss any case that attempted to compel the Senate to consider such a matter.</p>
<p>The only way to impose such a duty on the Senate would be through a constitutional amendment. For example, an amendment could provide that if a nomination is not voted on by the senate within 180 days, it will be deemed approved and the nominee confirmed. The chance of such an amendment being proposed and ratified seems low, but one never knows. Until and unless some amendment is passed and ratified on the topic, the Senate is free to simply ignore nominations if it so chooses, for any reason or none.</p>

<p>There is no requirement in the Constitution that the Senate confirm anyone by a certain deadline.  The longest delay in U.S. history was over a vacancy on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/nov/03/richard-burr/sen-richard-burr-claims-responsibility-longest-jud/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">lasting more than 16 years, from 1994 until James Wynn was confirmed in 2010.</a></p>
