What Happens if the Vice-President Steps Down?

There has been a strange rumor that Vice-President Harris may resign. I have no reason to credit the rumor; but it does raise a rarely-discussed question (which a reader e-mailed me about): What happens when a Vice-President resigns—or dies or is impeached, or for that matter leaves office to become President—and in particular what happens when there's a 50-50 senate?

For much of the nation's history, there was no provision for such situations, and as a result the Vice-Presidency was fairly often vacant (chiefly as a result of the Vice-President becoming President, except once when Vice-President John Calhoun resigned). But the Twenty-Fifth Amendment provides:

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.

(This was how President Gerald Ford became Vice-President, after Spiro Agnew's resignation.) This provision yields two obvious follow-up questions, especially when the Senate is divided 50-50.

[1.] If the Senators are tied, would Vice-President Harris be able to break the tie to approve her own replacement? No, I think: No vote can happen (indeed, no official nomination can happen) until there is a vacancy, so by definition either

1. the Vice-President is still in office, in which case there can't be a vote, or
2. the Vice-President is no longer in office, in which case she can't break a tie.

[2.] Can the President pro tempore of the Senatebreak the tie? The Constitution provides that "the Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States." But I don't think this has been understood as allowing the President pro tempore to cast two votes, both his own and the Vice-President's, and have those count towards "a majority." When 100 Senators are voting, and the Vice-President is not, a 50-50 vote is not "a majority."

Of course, there may well not be a 50-50 tie even if the Vice-President resigns; after all, if there's no Vice-President, then under the Presidential Succession Act, Nancy Pelosi (the Speaker of the House) would become next in line for the Presidency. (Some argue that the presence of the Speaker of the House and then the President pro tempore of the Senate in the succession is unconstitutional, but even if that's so, then Secretary of State Antony Blinken would become next in line.) It's not clear why Republicans in the Senate would necessarily prefer those as potential Presidents over someone President Biden proposes.

But I suppose President Biden could nominate someone whom the Republicans may sufficiently dislike. And I suppose that in any event Republicans might even refuse to confirm a Vice-President chiefly out of concern about the Vice-President's tie-breaking power (no Vice-President, no tie-breaker for votes over ordinary Senate matters, such as on legislation) rather than about the possibility of the Vice-President succeeding. Both highly unlikely, I think, but stranger things have happened ….

Yet again I stress that this is just constitutional lawyer fun: I have no reason to believe that the Vice-President actually has any plans to resign.

UPDATE: See also this follow-up post, Can a Vice-President Be Confirmed by a Majority Vote of Both Houses Put Together?

Comments

[Armchair Lawyer]

There are a few odd typos in the last two paragraphs where you refer to "Vice-President Biden"

[Eugene Volokh]

Whoops, fixed, thanks!

[zztop8970]

Doesn't seem fixed, yet

[Marshal]

Presumably that's a reference to President Klain.

[Bob from Ohio]

"why Republicans in the Senate would necessarily prefer those as potential Presidents"

Age. Both are 81, older than even Biden. No real threat to be a 2024 candidate.

Plus, Leahy is a colorless non-entity and Pelosi is unpopular.

Plus, Pelosi leaving the speaker chair would spark a brutal succession crisis between the establishment left wing and the far left wing.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Having the VP seat be vacant, and thus there not being a "tie breaker" in the Senate would be preferable, I would think.

There's no succession to the Vice Presidency.

[Kazinski]

Pelosi would probably be even worse than Biden as President, she's more autocratic, and vindictive, but smarter, which is a bad combination.

Her comment about getting better lawyers when Biden said his lawyers told him an executive order eviction mandate was unconstitutional was very telling. Pelosi would attempt to rule by executive order.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, she would. But Bob is right: She's older than dirt, no way would she be running in 2024, or have the slightest chance if she did.

The President is apparently a puppet for the far left, Pelosi would be no better, but neither would anybody Biden might propose. The Republican fear isn't that a lunatic end up VP then President, fear is for things that haven't happened yet. The WH is occupied by a demented lunatic, and that's baked in until at least January 20th, 2025.

Their fear would be a lunatic who might actually have a chance of winning in 2024. A (relatively) young, attractive lunatic, in place of the wildly unpopular current lunatic.

[dwb68]

Most likely explanation for the email about VP succession is that they are preparing for Biden to step down (or die) and for VP Harris to become Prez.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Except President Harris would be just as bad a 2024 candidate.

[dwb68]

Assuming Biden makes it that long. I remain skeptical.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

If the election were held today, both would be poison. I don't see the DNC gladly keeping either one. But Biden may not want to bow out gracefully, and Harris ... she might not like being VP, but I doubt she'd bow out gracefully either.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You figure there are enough poorly educated racists, disaffected clingers, and superstitious gay-bashers left in our left-behind southern and rural stretches to position the Republican to get more votes than the Democrat in the next national election?

Biden beat Trump by seven million votes (if one disregards QAnon and the widespread, systematic voter fraud described by the BiteMyPillow guy). America's electorate will reflect four more years of improvement -- less rural, less religious, less White, less bigoted, less backward -- in 2024. That's millions of fewer prospective Republican votes.

[dwb68]

I dont think DNC has a choice. Harris is as eligible for the primary election as anyone. If she becomes Prez, ppl can still run against her. The Sanders wing will probably challenge her, win, then get crushed in the general.

But really, it doesn't matter. Biden/Harris poll #s are a dumpster fire because they've mishandled so many things. If the Dems pass another multi trillion dollar spending extravaganza that further overheats inflation, and dont the border under control, the Dems are toast for a good 12 years, just like Carter locked the Dems out of the Oval Office until Clinton.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where are you planning to find enough superstitious bigots, half-educated clingers, and backwater culture war casualties to elect a Republican president in modern America?

Missibamatucky? West Viroklahio? Tennekotawa?

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

The formerly Republican suburbs can be won back if Trump stays on the sidelines (as in Virginia two weeks ago). But if there is a way for Republicans to lose, Trump will find it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Biden/Harris poll #s are a dumpster fire because they've mishandled so many things. "

Biden is a dumpster fire because he's mishandled so many things. Harris is a dumpster fire because she was already a dumpster fire when Biden picked her for VP, and didn't grow in office, except grow worse.

[Martinned]

You spelled "black" wrong.

[FourteenFour]

I was under the impression one of the reasons she was selected is because she vote as told.

[Kazinski]

That make sense to me.

[twobaylorbears]

Come on, where's the West Wing reference?

[rsteinmetz]

John Goodman for acting President

[JSR2]

President Ralph?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh seems to spend substantially more time with downscale newspapers (Sun, Free Beacon, Examiner, etc.) than the average law professor at a strong school.

[SAtex]

Agreed. "Upscale" [sic] papers are generally garbage these days.

[Lee Moore]

I'm confident that there would be 50 Republican votes for Joe Manchin 🙂

But in practice there are at least a dozen moderate Republicans who'd vote for any moderately sane D nominee for VP.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree; Team R moderates are voting to confirm Biden nominees to cabinet positions and to district judgeships.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Well, until Trump lathers a mob to overrun the RINOs' position.

[MatthewSlyfield]

If Biden nominated any sitting D Senator from a state with a R governor, the entire GOP would would jump at a confirmation. Why? Say goodbye to the 50/50 Senate and say hello to a 51R/49D Senate.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Maybe. The concept of leaving the VP empty, and not having the tie-breaker in the Senate is a nice bonus.

Although, VP Manchin would solve that problem easily.

[BillyG]

I think Tulsi gabbard is more realistic than Biden. But really, I think Kamala's replacement would be president within a year. So really, who on the democrats side do you think would replace Biden and be competent?

[BillyG]

Grrr.... More realistic than manchen.

Newsom might be a possibility... But the optics of replacing black woman with white man in the identity politics Democrat arena is.... Bad.

[Kazinski]

Well first of all I think the VP they would be selecting would be President Harris' VP, not President Bidens. I can't think of a reason in the world Harris would resign, not with Biden's obvious decline.

Second I agree that Manchin would be out of the question for the Democratic base, and why he would trade 2-3 years of being VP for being King of the Senate, doesn't make sense, since he'd have GOP replacement he would no longer be the tiebreaker there either.

Newsome could work if he is Harris's VP, but the base of the party would never stand for replacing Harris with a cis-het white male to be Biden's VP, and the rank and file Black voters may be even less disposed to support replacing Harris with a gay white male, with fewer accomplishments on his record than even Harris, like say Buttigeige.

I'd say if Harris replaces Biden, then Harris replacement would be an older statesmen type like John Kerry. But if Harris is resigning then it has to be a Black replacement whether male or female, because otherwise the optics would drive the woke base crazy.

[BillyG]

I think Harris is going to be replaced before Biden because the Democrats want to win. Her polls are worse than Biden's. Unless something changes radically, she can't win election in '24 and the Democrats are looking at losses in '22 as is. Democrats need a candidate that can bring out voters. Harris will, at present, cause them to stay home.

I see either (1) Biden staying until '24 or (2) Harris leaving first. I could be wrong. Time will tell.

[bernard11]

I doubt it. Not least because there are nowhere near "a dozen moderate Republicans." Indeed, I think that there are, by definition, almost none.

Maybe Murkowski. And no doubt Collins, the Queen of the Furrowed Brow, would publicly agonize before voting against the nominee. The rest would just follow along.

[Life of Brian]

there are, by definition, almost none.

By what definition?

[Brett Bellmore]

"They're Republicans. QED"

[Sarcastr0]

Y'all are purging anyone who voted for the infrastructure bill. Not because of what's in the bill, but purely because it gave Biden a win.

That is not how an actual party operates.

[Martinned]

Not in a two-party system, no.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Not because of what's in the bill, but purely because it gave Biden a win."

The bill is a steaming heap, but for purposes of argument, you're going to pretend otherwise, just so you can make that claim.

[Commenter_XY]

But I suppose Vice-President Biden could nominate someone whom the Republicans may sufficiently dislike.

He is POTUS Biden. 🙁

[dwb68]

good catch. lmao.

But, *is* he President, really?

[Commenter_XY]

Well........ 🙂

[David Nieporent]

Nancy Pelosi (the Speaker of the House) would become next in line for the Presidency. (Some argue that the presence of the Speaker of the House and then the President pro tempore of the Senate in the succession is unconstitutional, but even if that's so, then Secretary of State Antony Blinken would become next in line.) It's not clear why Republicans in the Senate would necessarily prefer those as potential Presidents over someone []President Biden proposes.

Come on; let's not be naive. They wouldn't necessarily prefer Pelosi; rather, they would prefer to have the office remain vacant so that after the GOP takes over the House in January 2023, Speaker Marjorie Taylor Green can inherit the WH if the office becomes vacant.

[Lee Moore]

In practice Mitch could not prevent at least half a dozen R Senators voting for a replacement VP. But also in practice Mitch might try to persuade them to hold off for a few months to slow the pace of judicial confirmations. I think the D Senate took about 4 months over Rockefeller, so that's probably the limit.

And then I expect Mitch would like the Rs to look all reasonable and moderate for the 2022 elections, so when the vote finally came, it'd probably be something like 90-9.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Don't be silly David...

They'd appoint Trump to be Speaker of the House instead, so that when Biden leaves office, Trump would walk right back into the Presidency.

(Well, no they wouldn't actually do that. But the thought of it would give more than a few liberals heart attacks)

[Seamus]

I can't imagine anything short of the threat of criminal prosecution that would persuade Harris to step down as VP. Well, maybe if Biden offered her a seat on the Supreme Court, but that would require someone on the Court to resign or die, and even then the chances of getting the Senate to confirm her would be no better than 50-50 (literally).

[Free Exercise]

Well, it’s probably close to 50-50 that Justice Breyer retires at the end of the Court’s current term. If the reports are correct that Biden & his staff have a low opinion of Harris and her political skills, they might be tempted to put her on the Court so they could name a new VP, and Harris might accept since a lifetime SCOTUS appointment could look better than the Democrats electoral prospects in 2024. The problem is that there doesn’t appear to be an attractive alternative who would have a significant impact on the 2024 campaign, either as Biden’s running mate or at the top of the ticket

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not like a criminal prosecution would be off the table. I can't imagine Harris being clean as the driven snow, and part of getting high office is having your past extensively vetted for potential blackmail material.

[Rev. O.T. Medal]

Were Kamala Harris to resign as VP, the Republicans in the Senate would refuse to confirm anyone selected by President Biden as VP. Two reasons.

First, as EV notes, without a VP, the Democrats would lose any ability to do anything in the Senate without Mitch McConnell's permission. If there is power to be grabbed, McConnell will grab it.

Second, Republicans are highly likely to take control of the House in 2022. So there would only be one year when Republicans faced the threat of a scenario in which Speaker Pelosi becomes President. Then there would be two years when the Republicans would be poised to claim the Presidency if anything happened to Biden. In holding up Garland's SCOTUS nomination McConnell was betting that Hilary Clinton would lose. He won the bet and never had to face a more liberal nominee for that SCOTUS seat. After that, it will be a snap for him to leave the office of the VP empty and bet that Biden lives until after there is a Republican Speaker of the House.

[Martinned]

And I suppose that in any event Republicans might even refuse to confirm a Vice-President chiefly out of concern about the Vice-President's tie-breaking power (no Vice-President, no tie-breaker for votes over ordinary Senate matters, such as on legislation) rather than about the possibility of the Vice-President succeeding. Both highly unlikely, I think, but stranger things have happened

Since McConnell was able to invent and enforce a rule against voting on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court, I have no doubt that he'd be able to do the same for the VP's office, and that he would want to for exactly this reason.

The other obvious reason to avoid letting the President have his nominee for VP is the same reason as why the Democrats put Harris in that job in the first place: because it increases their profile going into the next presidential election. That is basically the equivalent of stopping someone from being confirmed for a Federal appellate judgeship because that would make them a future SCOTUS candidate. Again, that's a perfectly common thing for Republicans to do.

[Aron]

Which party is considered the majority party in a 50-50 Senate in the absence of a tiebreaking vice president?

[Martinned]

Whichever one has more senators on the floor at any given time. In practice, the Democrats would have no choice but to do a deal with the Republicans to divide it all up evenly down the middle.

(They already have a deal like that, but currently it doesn't go down the middle because currently there is a VP to break the ties. But since they don't want to ask the VP to camp out in the Capitol 24/7, some pragmatism is preferable.)

[Brett Bellmore]

The Democrats can have a 50-49 majority in the Senate any time they consider it important enough to send a message to some disposable homicidal maniac.

Who may not even need a message sent.

Let's not forget, (Though the media would like us to.) that a Bernie Bro tried his best to give the Democrats a House majority between elections, just a few years ago.

[Martinned]

Wait, you're accusing the Democrats of using violence to interfere with Congress proceedings? Have you completely lost your mind?

[Brett Bellmore]

<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/28/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-protesters-christine-blasey-ford/1453524002/"Madder than a hatter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Madder than a hatter.

[Mark Leen]

Does the President pro tempore have to be a Senator? Could the Senate, under Vice-President Harris, choose a President Pro-Tempore who was not a Senator before she resigned and then that person break a tie? My recollection is that the Speaker of the House does not have to be a Representative.

[Martinned]

I think the same is true in the Senate, but whenever someone other than the VP presides my reading is that they wouldn't have a tie-breaking vote:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

[Josh R]

Does "but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided" modify "The Vice President" or "President of the Senate"?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm not sure it matters, as by definition the Vice President is President of the Senate.

[Josh R]

It's arguable that in the absence of the VP, the President pro tempore takes on the role of the President of the Senate, including having a tie-breaking vote.

[Lee Moore]

I don't think it is so arguable, but if it were, there's no textual reason why the President pro tempore should pick up the second half of "but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided" without also picking up the first half. So the Ppt would lose his ordinary vote in exchange for a casting one.

And the Senate practice is certainly not that - Ppts vote all the time.

[David Nieporent]

Does "equally divided" refer to the Senate or to the Vice President?

[Martinned]

I think it modifies VP, but I agree it could do with some redrafting.

[decline to state]

If it were to happen this term, I'm reasonably confident that at least one Republican would be on board with letting the president pick a new vice president if there weren't something obviously disqualifying.

What about if it were to happen in the next term and Republicans had control of the Senate again. Is there any mechanism that forces Mitch McConnell to bring it to a vote any more than there was for Merrick Garland?

[Martinned]

That assumes that, in an equally divided Senate with no VP to break any ties, McConnell wouldn't in any event be able to stop this nomination from coming to a vote.

[decline to state]

If McConnell's in charge it isn't an evenly divided senate (that's why I said next term after the 2022 elections). And since McConnell will never bring anything to the floor that would be open to a VP tie breaker, that is off the table.

But if he still sees benefit in the office being empty and knows there are moderate Republicans who would still allow the President to pick his own VP, what forces McConnell to bring it to the floor for a vote?

[Martinned]

If no one's in charge, because it's a 50/50 tie with the VP having stepped down, McConnell might ask and get "no new VP" when they divide the loot. That is, he might well be able to make the Democrats choose between getting a new VP and getting any part of their legislative agenda adopted. After all, they would need to come to some kind of arrangement more than the Republicans would, being the party that controls the White House and the House of Representatives, and therefore the party that gets blamed for any inaction and other legislative breakdowns.

[branford]

In the event Harris steps down, a crisis can be averted if Biden nominates a perceived moderate who publicly agrees not to seek the office of the president. This individual will need to be old and generally well-respected, likely a not-recently retired Democratic senator or governor.

Such an individual will enrage progressives, but look good for Biden and allow other Democrats to compete in a truly open playing field for the position in 2024. It would also make Republicans look responsible with those suburban win they won back just recently. They can still slow-walk the hearings and approval to delay other confirmations and legislation to maximize benefit.

[Don Nico]

"This individual will need to be old and generally well-respected, likely a not-recently retired Democratic senator or governor."
The obvious person fitting the bill is Leon Panetta. But he is too smart to take the job.

[John F. Carr]

Lincoln Chafee is technically a retired Democratic governor.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Democrats are, at the moment, psychologically incapable of doing that sort of thing.

[Mark Regan]

"For much of the nation's history, there was no provision for such situations, and as a result the Vice-Presidency was fairly often vacant (chiefly as a result of the Vice-President becoming President, except once when Vice-President John Calhoun resigned)."

I think the word "chiefly" is incorrect here. The Wikipedia entry indicates that seven Vice Presidents died in office, all before the 25th Amendment:

Seven vice presidents have died in office:

George Clinton (served under James Madison)

Elbridge Gerry (served under James Madison)

William Rufus De Vane King (served under Franklin Pierce)

Henry Wilson (served under U.S. Grant)

Thomas Hendricks (served under Grover Cleveland)

Garret Hobart (served under William McKinley)

James Sherman (served under William Howard Taft)

That's as against Tyler, Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, and Truman -- seven pre-25th Amendment Vice Presidents leaving the Vice Presidency to become President.

[Mark Regan]

Sorry about that -- 8 pre-25th Amendment Vice Presidents succeeding to the Presidency. LBJ was the 8th.

[Jerry B.]

“What Happens if the Vice President Steps Down?”

Rejoicing?

[jdgalt1]

"why Republicans in the Senate would necessarily prefer those as potential Presidents"

If I were a Republican in the Senate that would not decide my vote. No matter who is nominated, I would want the office of VP to remain vacant until after the 2022 election just to deprive the Democrats of the tie-breaking vote and thereby create gridlock that doesn't depend on Manchin or Sinema continuing to resist their party.

[Will Nonya]

"this is just constitutional lawyer fun"

Now I'm curious what an unconstitutional lawyer does for fun.

[Matthew Carberry]

Worth noting the Dems don't really have 50 seats in the Senate, they have 48, and the 2 Ind's, who caucus with them. The Republicans are the Majority party.

That kind of opening would likely bring out the knives between the hard left wing of the Dems and the sane Moderates, with Sinema and Manchin in even more of a power position within the Dems than they have now.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Obviously, if the Vice President steps down, the President becomes Vice President. That's why we have the office!

[Flight-ER-Doc]

With an unfilled Vice presidency the Speaker of the house is next in line of succession.

Not the next VP....

[subpatre]

What happens if Harris retires and Biden is 25th'ed?
Does anyone doubt the President is could be declared unfit at any given moment?

Disregarding the BBB legislation cuts, spiraling crime (really not his fault, but), OSHA vaccine enforcement, 30% inflation, supply chain woes, the federal oil & gas lands debacle, and now OK's NG 'decertification', Biden's been divisive whenever possible, but overall plainly ineffective. Perhaps it doesn't look that way to the laptop class, but to the middle and working class it does.

[SMP0328]

Sections 3 and 4 of the 25th Amendment require there be a Vice President for either to be invoked.

[Bruce Hayden]

I think that Biden et al cannot afford removing Harris. It’s just too dangerous for them, as indicated by these comments. On the flip side, the Dems are, right now, very likely to lose control of both Houses of Congress, and it would be to their advantage to not replace Harris after that, hoping that Biden’s slide continues to the point where he can’t possibly continue as President.

Should be interesting.

[Take the fifth]

Your hypothetical did not go far enough. There is a tie vote in the Senate and they then adjourn. Could the President then name a VP under a recess appointment under article 2

[SMP0328]

No. Section 2 says a majority of each House of Congress must in favor of confirmation for a VP nominee to become Vice President. The legislative history is also clear on this point.

[KeithK]

In the unlikely event that Harris were to resign, I can't imagine that Republicans would be willing to allow a VP to be seated and again give Democrats control of the Senate. As a partisan Republican I certainly wouldn't want them to. In a 50-50 Senate with no tie breaking vote the Biden agenda is DoA without having to rely on moderate Dems. It would be easy to couch such resistance in terms of being concerned about whoever was nominated, with further reference on the historical record about VP vacancies. (Naturally this assumes that a nominee weren't a Senator from a state with an R governor who has authority to appoint a successor. But that seems about as unlikely as Harris resigning voluntarily.)

[eyeroller]

Of course, there may well not be a 50-50 tie even if the Vice-President resigns; after all, if there's no Vice-President, then under the Presidential Succession Act, Nancy Pelosi (the Speaker of the House) would become next in line for the Presidency.

This makes no sense. Pelosi would not become VP, so she would have no effect on a 50-50 tie.

[Eugene Volokh]

What I meant is that some Republicans would be fine confirming Biden's new VP pick to be next in line for the Presidency, since otherwise if Biden dies (not a minor possibility, given his age), Pelosi would become President -- and Republicans presumably wouldn't much care for that.

As I wrote shortly after the quoted sentence, "It's not clear why Republicans in the Senate would necessarily prefer those [Pelosi or perhaps Blinken] as potential Presidents over someone President Biden proposes."

[OtisAH]

You may not have reason to credit the rumor but that sure didn’t stop you from spreading it. Reminds me of the time I confronted a professional peer about some stupid rumor he was spreading about me. His response: “I’m not spreading rumors, I’m just passing along what I heard.”

[Eugene Volokh]

OtisAH: The rumor was mentioned in prominent news publication; I doubt that my mentioning it materially increases its audience.

On the other hand, the legal analysis that this prompts strikes me as interesting, and likely something our modest audience wouldn't get elsewhere. So I feel pretty comfortable that mentioning the rumor (while making clear that it's just a rumor), and offering the legal analysis, is a reasonable thing for me to do here.

[ReaderY]

Until recent times, I think there would be enough of a consensus that the constitutional role needs to be filled to keep the government running and since the President won the elections he gets some deference in appointing a successor that there would a majority supporting the President’s pick absent some serious flaw.

But I think that today, a 50-50 split with the President’s nominee not being confirmed is a very plausible outcome. Since the President’s nominee is likely to be well to the left of the Republicans regardless of who it is, I imagine it very likely they would conclude that not having a 51st Democrat in the Senate and gaining the ability to block anything and everything the Democrats might want to do - judical nominees, budgets, etc. - is well worth the risk that Nancy Pelosi might become President.

After all, is there really much of a difference between Kamela Harris and Nancy Pelosi from a Republican point of view? Unless President Biden nominated a Vice President candidate so conservative as to likely lose votes from the Democrats’ left wing, they probably wouldn’t see much difference between Nancy Pelosi and whoever President Biden nominated to replace Vice President Harris either.

[arbitrary aardvark]

Today I Learned that there is a secretary of state named A. Blinken.
I anticipate this may cause some confusion.

Bonus round: which former GOP president was involved in professional wrestling?