Can the US Senate stop the filibuster by silencing the minority?

Question

In recent years, the Senate has operated under a filibuster rule that 60 votes are needed to end debate and bring an issue to a vote. However, President Trump has encouraged the Senate to "go nuclear" if they cannot get 60 votes in favor of ending debate on his Supreme Court nominee, meaning to change the rules so that a simple majority is sufficient to finish the nomination process.

Tonight on the Senate floor, during a debate on the nomination of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) attempted to read a letter from Coretta Scott King that had been persuasive in his previous hearing as part of an unsuccessful nomination to a federal judgeship. However, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) interrupted that reading with an accusation that these words "impugned the motives and conduct" of Sen. Sessions (R-AL), and a party-line vote was held in which Sen. Warren was silenced and prevented from participating in the rest of the debate. A tweet by Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-CT) indicated he might try to continue where Warren left off.

Could the Republicans do exactly the same to Sen. Murphy, and every other Democrat who speaks out, thus effectively bringing an end to debate and preventing a filibuster, with their simple majority?

EDIT: This question is not meant to be specific to one particular confirmation hearing. It is meant to be a broader question about whether or not this particular strategy of silencing the minority is allowed under the Rules of the Senate and applicable laws, as a valid way around a filibuster.

Answer 1

Elizabeth Warren was accused of being violating Senate Rule XIX.

2. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.

This was what she said that was in violation and she was warned by the Senate's presiding officer, Steve Daines:

“He is, I believe, a disgrace to the justice department and he should withdraw his nomination and withdraw from the Justice Department… Like he did, I will cast my nomination against the vote of Sen. Sessions,” Warren said, quoting Kennedy.

However, she continued speaking and took issue with Daines' characterisation. That was when the Senate Majority Leader cut her off.

The key is that there must be evidence of rule violation before a Senator can be silenced. In this case, Senate Republicans argued that Senator Warren was warned before she was barred from speaking. An article by Vox describes how a Senator can be silenced.

Answer 2

You are talking about two things.

1. Filibuster the filibuster. Reid made that possible when the Democrats had the majority. He was warned that he could be at the receiving end of his own stick. Today's Democrats should thank him for that.

2. On Warren, your recollection of current event could use some major improvement. Rule 19 is what tripped her. That rule existed all along, and applies to all equally. Except that the senator from MA violated it.

Seems fair to me.

Answer 3

In theory, yes. They would vote that members of the other party broke rules that allowed silencing them. Practically, this is both impossible and pointless. They would have to vote on each individually, so that would eat up time. Silencing the oppostion like that would probably not play well with the people that voted them in, and would likely lead to at least some of them not getting relected. And it would give the opposition a free hand to say whatever they wanted to in public.