8

Here's an article about possible "hardball" tactics Democrats could use under Biden/Harris, if they don't get control of the Senate: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/11/potential-constitutional-hardball-in-a-republican-controlled-senate/

I am interested in factual (as factual as possible anyway) responses to the question of whether the following tactic is in fact legal. (Not opinions as to the wisdom or effectiveness of this tactic!)

Is it true, as this article argues, that the VP could technically choose not to follow certain precedents (not even Senate rules--just certain precedents of practice) and recognize the minority leader instead of the majority leader as the first to take the floor and set the agenda?

| improve this question | |
New contributor
user3752935 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
  • 1
    The author, Josh Blackman, is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and the President of the Harlan Institute. Josh Blackman is "the author of three books" and "nearly five dozen law review articles" and has "twice testified before the House Judiciary Committee". What reason could there be to question whether these two tactics are in fact legal? – Rick Smith 20 hours ago
  • 1
    Why bother just use acting positions to not bother with confirmations. – Jontia 19 hours ago
  • 11
    @RickSmith - If highly regarded lawyers were always correct (or at least always agreed) about what is legal, all Supreme Court decisions would be unanimous. – Obie 2.0 15 hours ago
  • 1
    @Obie2.0 - Even highly-regarded lawyers don't always agree on any particular case, because the facts are rarely the same. Legal Advice: Pound the Facts, Pound the Law, Pound the Table. And, jurists have different views about how the law should be interpreted. – Rick Smith 13 hours ago
  • 3
    The question has now been edited so it only contains one question. – D M 13 hours ago
12

And is it true, as this article argues, that the VP could technically choose not to follow certain precedents (not even Senate rules--just certain precedents of practice) and recognize the minority leader instead of the majority leader as the first to take the floor and set the agenda?

The Vice President could recognize the minority leader, sure. However, the majority of the Senate can make its own rules (The Constitution provides that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings") and can overrule any ruling the Vice President could make on its rules. I doubt the minority leader would have time to actually do anything before this was objected to.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .