The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Pesident Joe Biden And Vice President Kamala Harris

With a Democrat in the White House and Democrats effectively controlling the Senate, Republicans might have figured they were bound to lose the coming Supreme Court battle. But last Thursday, they found a glimmer of hope in one of their favorite places: the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Democrats have shown that if they stick together, they can get their way in the Senate without a single Republican. They have 50 senators, as does the GOP. But in cases of a tie, the vice president, as president of the Senate, casts the deciding vote. Kamala Harris has done it several times, just as Mike Pence did.

But the Journal unearthed an article, written in 2020 by the renowned Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, contending that in the case of a Supreme Court nomination, the vice president should have no vote.

Noting that no judicial appointment was ever decided this way until 2018, Tribe argued that allowing this practice would "break the Framers' careful constitutional structure." He cited Alexander Hamilton who in The Federalist Papers said that "if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made."

If Tribe is right, Joe Biden could find himself powerless to fill the vacancy left by the departing Stephen Breyer with a justice agreeable to Democrats. Republicans in the Senate could block any nominee until such time as they regain a majority in the Senate. The crowning irony would be doing it on the authority of one of the nation's premier liberal legal minds.

But embracing this argument would require Republicans to discard one of the fundamental concepts of conservative constitutional interpretation. Known as textualism and championed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, it says that the most important consideration in such matters is the plain language of the Constitution.

Constitutional language doesn't get much plainer than Article I, Section 3: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." If the Senate is equally divided, the vice president has a vote. The provision mentions no exceptions.

Tribe, however, notes that the Constitution says judicial nominees are subject to "the advice and consent of the Senate." If the Senate "cannot muster a majority to 'consent' to the appointment," he says, the framers meant for it to fail.

But what the framers had in mind doesn't necessarily support this argument. Hamilton may have agreed, but one of the experts Tribe cites, Samuel Morse, acknowledges that only a minority of those at the Constitutional Convention took that view.

Michael McConnell, an influential conservative legal scholar at Stanford and a former federal appeals court judge who was appointed by George W. Bush, is not persuaded by Tribe's argument. The provision giving the vice president a vote, he told me, "applies whenever the Senate is equally divided. If Section 3 did not apply to the advice and consent function, then the vice president would not only not be able to vote, but would not preside, which is contrary to historical practice."

There is also the matter of longstanding historical understanding and practice, which count for a lot in applying the Constitution. Vice presidents have cast many deciding votes for executive branch nominees, going back at least to 1832. Betsy DeVos became secretary of Education in 2017 only because Mike Pence broke a tie vote on her nomination.

Nor would Harris be the first vice president to determine the fate of a judicial nominee. In 2018, Pence voted to confirm Jonathan Kobes for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Tribe is correct that "no vice president in our history has ever cast a tie-breaking vote to confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court." But that fact is not as revealing as it may appear. To his knowledge, says McConnell, until 2018 "there was never an occasion when the issue arose."

That's because close votes for Supreme Court nominees are a rare and mostly recent phenomenon. For much of our history, they were usually confirmed by voice vote, the functional equivalent of unanimous approval. Stephen Breyer, chosen by Bill Clinton, carried the Senate by 87-9.

If Republicans hope to block Biden's nominee, they will have to unite all their senators and coax at least one Democrat to join them. If not, Kamala Harris will be ready to cast the deciding vote, and nothing is going to stop her.

Follow Steve Chapman on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at


Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Donald Trump
Youtube Screenshot

Allies of former President Donald Trump have advised members of the Republican Party to cool down their inflammatory rhetoric toward the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation following the execution of a search warrant at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida on Monday.

Trump supporters, right-wing pundits, and lawmakers have been whipped into a frenzy over what Trump called a "raid" by federal agents in pursuit of classified documents removed from the White House during Trump's departure from office.

Keep reading... Show less

Former President Donald Trump

Youtube Screenshot

On August 20, 2022, Donald Trump will have been gone from the White House for 19 months. But Trump, unlike other former presidents, hasn’t disappeared from the headlines by any means — and on Monday, August 8, the most prominent topic on cable news was the FBI executing a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in South Florida. Countless Republicans, from Fox News hosts to Trump himself, have been furiously railing against the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). And in an article published by Politico on August 11, reporters Kyle Cheney and Meridith McGraw describe the atmosphere of “paranoia” and suspicion that has become even worse in Trumpworld since the search.

“A wave of concern and even paranoia is gripping parts of Trumpworld as federal investigators tighten their grip on the former president and his inner circle,” Cheney and McGraw explain. “In the wake of news that the FBI agents executed a court-authorized search warrant at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, Trump’s allies and aides have begun buzzing about a host of potential explanations and worries. Among those being bandied about is that the search was a pretext to fish for other incriminating evidence, that the FBI doctored evidence to support its search warrant — and then planted some incriminating materials and recording devices at Mar-a-Lago for good measure — and even that the timing of the search was meant to be a historical echo of the day President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974.”

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}