Sorta. They can be fired at will (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/05/08/k...) and they're making advisories, which the Senate can just... overrule.
The job of the parliamentarian is to interpret the rules and give advice about what is allowed and what is not. Sure, they can be wrong. But if you don't like the rules, change them. Because any self-governing body that isn't following its own rules isn't actually operating. Any legislation the Senate "passes" in violation of its own rules doesn't actually exist. It's an exercise in futility. Both Democrats and Republicans understand this and both parties value an impartial parliamentarian as an asset. It's a job created out of need:
> Charles Watkins had arrived in the Senate in 1904 from Arkansas to work as a stenographer. Blessed with a photographic memory, and a curiosity about Senate procedures, he eventually transferred to the Senate floor as journal clerk. In 1919 he started what became a 45-year search of the Congressional Record, back to the 1880s, for Senate decisions that interpreted the body’s individual standing rules to the legislative needs of the moment.
> In 1923 Watkins replaced the ailing assistant secretary of the Senate as unofficial advisor on floor procedure to the presiding officer. From that time, he became the body’s parliamentarian, in fact if not in title. Finally, in 1935, at a time when an increased volume of New Deal-era legislation expanded opportunities for procedural confusion and mischief, he gained the actual title.
https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/secretary-of-the...
That's what the vote to overrule the parlimentarian essentially does, for that one vote. Both parties have done so for judicial confirmations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option; "a parliamentary procedure that allows the Senate to override a standing rule by a simple majority"
> Any legislation the Senate "passes" in violation of its own rules doesn't actually exist.
A court is not likely to agree with that.
