Well .. listen up everybody .. here's the REAL SCOOP:
Does anybody else recall .. during Nixon's first term, Spiro Agnew was removed from office - AND NIXON APPOINTED A REPLACEMENT. The Speaker of the House DID NOT TAKE THE V.P. POSITION.
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS in Amendment XXV, Section 2: "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President SHALL NOMINATE A VICE PRESDIDENT WHO SHALL TAKE OFFICE upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." That was ratified February 10, 1967.
While the democrats may be fooling themselves into believing they will be able to stop everybody the President nominates .. the President still has the power of the recess appointment .. and since he's used it before .. and the remainder of his term is so short .. why not do it again ..?? Even if the VP's recess appt would be over before Bush left office .. a few months wouldn't necessarily make that big a difference. The President can function without a VP - if he chooses.
THE ONLY WAY PELOSI CAN TAKE OFFICE IS IF BOTH BUSH AND CHENEY ARE REMOVED - AT THE SAME TIME. That is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN - no matter how much the left wishes it would happen or tries to make it happen.
I could easily see that being challenged in court. VP is quite different than some federal appeals judge or even a SCOTUS appointment, or so the democrats would argue. It should be a laughable argument, but in this day of rule by liberal judicial fiat, who the heck knows?
And yes, I remember that time, very well. I also remember when that Amendment was ratified.