3 ms·

Then the senate would refuse to approve a VP replacement. Remember that leading up to counting the electoral votes loose-lipped GOP senators were saying that P

by gumby 2y ago

Then the senate would refuse to approve a VP replacement. Remember that leading up to counting the electoral votes loose-lipped GOP senators were saying that Pence (the VP) wouldn’t be counting the days electoral votes? How do you think that would proceed?

maxerickson 2y ago
The problem is that the Republican controlled house would have to confirm the appointed VP. The senate might take a minute, but it would likely get it done.
- gumby 2y ago
  Yeah, I meant the house: it would be much in the majority's interest* to leave the position vacant through the election. * I mean the way they seem to operate these days, where keeping the system running properly isn't considered important, and to a hardcore group is considered something to firmly oppose.
LetsGoApp 2y ago
The VP's confirmation would be beneficial, solidifying their position for re-election. However, if the confirmation fails, it could reflect negatively on those responsible, particularly if the candidate wins the general election, as it would highlight their inability to secure a key appointment. Regardless, the process would attract extensive media attention, offering free publicity, which is a win.
dredmorbius 2y ago
Note that by the 25th Amendment both houses would have to confirm. The (bare) Democratic majority Senate would be a challenge. The GOP majority House an even stronger hurdle. Though confirmation is a simple majority, not a supermajority (2/3 vote): Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv> There's also the fact that in ascending to the Presidency, Harris would no longer be President of the Senate, which would lose her tie-breaking vote, AFAIU.

by gumby 2y ago

maxerickson 2y ago

The problem is that the Republican controlled house would have to confirm the appointed VP. The senate might take a minute, but it would likely get it done.

gumby 2y ago
Yeah, I meant the house: it would be much in the majority's interest* to leave the position vacant through the election. * I mean the way they seem to operate these days, where keeping the system running properly isn't considered important, and to a hardcore group is considered something to firmly oppose.

LetsGoApp 2y ago

The VP's confirmation would be beneficial, solidifying their position for re-election. However, if the confirmation fails, it could reflect negatively on those responsible, particularly if the candidate wins the general election, as it would highlight their inability to secure a key appointment. Regardless, the process would attract extensive media attention, offering free publicity, which is a win.

dredmorbius 2y ago

Note that by the 25th Amendment both houses would have to confirm. The (bare) Democratic majority Senate would be a challenge. The GOP majority House an even stronger hurdle. Though confirmation is a simple majority, not a supermajority (2/3 vote): Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv> There's also the fact that in ascending to the Presidency, Harris would no longer be President of the Senate, which would lose her tie-breaking vote, AFAIU.