Whatever, we are right back to you wishing in one hand and shitting in the other. Even your own link directly states she would cast the tie breaking vote. I don't actually need a link here as you have already provided one. But I can:
Harris Could Make History as Tie-Breaker in Supreme Court Pick | Bloomberg Government
Stephen Breyer’s retirement creates another opportunity for Kamala Harris to enter the Senate record books.
about.bgov.com
Yes, Kamala Harris Can Break a Senate Tie on Biden’s Supreme Court Pick | National Review
While enticing, the legal argument that she can’t just doesn’t hold water.
www.nationalreview.com
Or, you know, I could just link the ONLY thing that matters, the actual constitution:
Not:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided excepting in cases of appointments. or excepting in cases of SCOTUS nomination or any exceptions whatsoever actually. None.
SO the CONSTITUTION itself grand that power to the VP, the power to break a tie and places exactly ZERO restrictions on it.
Now you make think that the federalist papers allow you to simply add whatever caveats you want into the actual text of the constitution but I would challenge you on that attempt. There are a LOT of things in the federalist papers, they are long and written by many different authors without any consent reached on what was penned. Doing so would be a MASSIVE boon to the extreme left.
Again, the text of the constitution is pretty damn clear. She has the vote and I am not willing to allow edits to the constitution for shits and giggles. One would have to prove how the intent of that passage was not what it actually said but rather something else, something that has not been established.
And here is a prime example:
How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago
The case for well-regulated militias
theweek.com
An illiberal leftist using federalist 29 to declare that the second amendment does not actually say what it plainly does say because of the federalist papers. I reject that on the same face that I reject your assertion, you do not get to pretend the actual text of the constitution is not what it is because you think you found something in a federalist paper. That shit would negate the purpose of having a constitution in the first place. The federalist papers can only give us insight on why the text is what it is, not add clauses that simply are not there.
