GOP won't let Schumer replace Feinstein on Judicary unless it's with Sinema

[SunSeeker]

Replacing Feinstein on the panel, even on a short-term basis, would require approval from the full Senate. Schumer could ask for unanimous consent on a resolution to make that happen, but any one Republican member could object and block it.

In that case, Democrats would have to go through a lengthy process to garner the 60 votes required to break a filibuster — meaning 10 Republicans would have to join the other 50 Democratic members to allow Feinstein's replacement.

Five Republican aides involved in the process say GOP senators have not formalized a plan to address the Democratic request. But there appears to be broad consensus that Schumer and his colleagues will need to negotiate some sort of deal that Republicans would be willing to go along with, according to the aides.

Republicans have expressed more willingness to support a centrist candidate. Some have said a good fit would be Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat-turned-independent who has warm relationships with many in the GOP.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-want-make-difficult-senate-replace-feinstein-key-panel-rcna79592

[AllyCat]

1. Phucking GOP

[brush]

2. Oh hell no.

[gratuitous]

3. Just name a Democrat

Let the Republicans cry about it. After the shenanigans they pulled on Supreme Court Justices under McConnell, I'm disinclined to listen to their bellyaching about naming a Democrat of the Majority Leader's choice to Judiciary.

[SunSeeker]

7. We need 60 votes. What do you suggest?

[gratuitous]

38. No vote, just name the replacement and seat that person

Then sit back and smile while Senate Republicans lose their shit.

[Polybius]

68. He can't

Senate rules prohibit it.

[gratuitous]

69. Let the Republicans enforce the rules if they can

Just name a Democrat to the committee and seat that person. Let the Republicans toil through whatever remedial process they have to slog through, and get the committee working and naming judges. It's quite clear that's the Republican M.O. on such matters, and once a judge gets seated on the federal bench, it's well-nigh impossible to remove them no matter what irregularities may be in the past.

[Polybius]

70. That's not how it works

If he does it anyway the post would be ruled invalid. Rules are in place and must be followed (or changed first). That's why Schumer couldn't just end the filibuster. It would require a vote.

[gratuitous]

72. You should tell Neal Gorsuch, then

He's still on the Supreme Court from what I can see, appointed when Mitch McConnell just ended the filibuster.

[NYC Liberal]

88. Neal Gorsuch was voted on and confirmed by the Senate.

No rules were broken.

[Polybius]

103. I don't have to, that's legal

There are no Senate rules in place that you must bring up judicial nominees to a floor vote when nominated by a President. Not sure why you brought up Gorsuch. Perhaps you meant Garland.

[montanacowboy]

5. Are you kidding me?

then the only other way to solve it is for Feinstein to retire.

[Freethinker65]

6. Sinema is no longer a Democrat. Not going to happen.

[live love laugh]

8. Duh 🙄. Did anyone expect Republicans to compromise?

[tirebiter]

9. We don't even need to bring that up

There just needs to be an intervention with DiFi and she’ll resign. Than Newsom appoints someone and Schumer appoints whomever to the committee. I was all for her hanging on as long as she could but now she can’t. Move on. It was a great life.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Doesn't work that way

Any new senator‘s committee appointments must still be approved by the whole senate.

[SunSeeker]

16. Not if the new senator is taking over for a resigned senator.

That's how I read this:

It’s not unusual for committee assignments to change at this point in a Congress: According to Michael Thorning, the director of structural democracy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, only three of the last 15 Congresses over the past 30 years did not have some kind of assignment change in the middle of a session. But this is typically due to a senator’s resignation or death, with a new successor appointed or elected to replace them.

“The primary complication is the unprecedented nature of a temporary replacement. The Senate would be setting a new precedent that has not been available to extended-absent senators in the past,” Thorning said in an email, highlighting the absences of senators like Fetterman and former Senators Mark Kirk and Tim Johnson, who both experienced serious medical issues while in office.

https://newrepublic.com/article/171906/replacing-feinstein-headache-democrats-judiciary

[Fiendish Thingy]

39. Not according to this:

https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate

In the appointment of the standing committees, or to fill vacancies thereon, the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, shall by resolution appoint the chairman of each such committee and the other members thereof. On demand of any Senator, a separate vote shall be had on the appointment of the chairman of any such committee and on the appointment of the other members thereof. Each such resolution shall be subject to amendment and to division of the question.

[SunSeeker]

75. Maybe argue that the CA seat on Judicary has not been vacated, just the person holding that seat.

That's how I read that first paragraph I cited. As long as the new person who fills that seat is just replacing the person who died or resigned, then they automatically step into the committee seat the retiring person held.

[Fiendish Thingy]

82. No serious person is making that argument

All reports are that 60 votes are needed to replace Feinstein, wither temporarily or permanently, with any senator from any state.

[SunSeeker]

91. Maybe they should be. nt

[Scrivener7]

36. Schumer already tried to have "several" interventions with Feinstein.

She literally forgot about the conversations "soon after they talked."

It is ridiculous at this point.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/dianne-feinsteins-missteps-raise-a-painful-age-question-among-senate-democrats

Schumer had several serious and painful talks with Feinstein, according to well-informed sources. Overtures were also made to enlist the help of Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum. Feinstein, meanwhile, was surprised and upset by Schumer’s message. He had wanted her to step aside on her own terms, with her dignity intact, but “she wasn’t really all that aware of the extent to which she’d been compromised,” one well-informed Senate source told me. “It was hurtful and distressing to have it pointed out.” Compounding the problem, Feinstein seemed to forget about the conversations soon after they talked, so Schumer had to confront her again. “It was like Groundhog Day, but with the pain fresh each time.”

And note this article is from years ago. It can only have gotten worse since.

[Marius25]

54. I got personally attacked by a poster here for posting the same thing

about Schumer's concerns over her health. You get insulted and reported if you dare suggest a 90 year old Senator with proven health issues may not be in a good position to continue in the Senate.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother with this forum.

[Scrivener7]

58. I was pretty viciously attacked for ageism when I said

RBG should retire during Obama's administration.

So I won't be bothered if I am attacked for the same fault now. This discussion is ridiculous.

I hope you keep bothering with us.

[maxsolomon]

67. We've all been attacked by that poster.

They're in every thread on Feinstein.

[Scrivener7]

73. .

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. This all could have been avoided if DiFi had retired 6 months ago. Nt

[SunSeeker]

15. Yup. nt

[Sky Jewels]

21. Or not run for re-election.

It’s one thing to run for a two-year House term when you’re in your mid-80s. Running for a six-year term in a closely divided legislative body is quite another. Very risky. Unfortunately.

[SunSeeker]

25. Yup.

That's why, when she declared her intention to run for reelection in 2018, she lost the endorsement of the California Democratic Party's executive board, which opted to support State Senator Kevin de León. She won regardless, thanks to her well-established name recognition.

[Nixie]

35. This is a bit of a distortion regarding that time period.

The California Democratic Party was taken over by Bernie Sanders supporters, and Bernie was leading a charge against Feinstein and supported Kevin de Leon. It was a war on centrists and the other rote revolution talking points. So using them as clout against Feinstein lost its significance.

Interestingly, de Leon is now washed up in California politics due to a scandal over racist comments. His career flamed out fast. I can’t recall Feinstein making comments as stupid as de Leon’s, yet Feinstein is called the mentally incompetent one.

[SunSeeker]

78. Nothing I said was a distortion.

Feinstein only got 7% of the party board vote. The CA Democratic Party has never been 93% Bernie Sanders supporters.

[Nixie]

81. Even saying she was too old for reelection is a distortion. Supposedly it was

her support for the death penalty that influenced. But it was definitely the Bernie Sanders influence which was well documented in the media and there is no need to go back and get gobs of articles to discuss the well-known trends at that time.


But here's one article.
https://www.pressenterprise.com/2017/01/12/how-bernie-sanders-supporters-are-trying-to-gain-power-in-california/
"They raged against the Democratic establishment. Now they want to take it over.

Self-described progressives, many of whom backed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, claimed sweeping victories in last weekend’s California Democratic Party delegate elections. They hope to influence the leadership, policies and direction of the state’s dominant political party."

edit: it also doesn't matter who they endorsed as Feinstein won relection, so it's obvious they were not a significant factor.

[SunSeeker]

86. She was 84 in 2018. She shouldn't have run for another 6 year term.

And yes, of course the party endorsement was not a significant factor. The significant factor was her huge name recognition and massive war chest. That is what kept smart Dem candidates on the sidelines. They knew they couldn't overcome her name recognition and money.

[bigtree]

46. Kevin de Leon turned out to be a real winner

L.A. council members made racist comments in leaked audio. Oct. 14, 2022

“I shouldn’t have said what I said,” Kevin de León told CNN on Tuesday, clarifying his remarks comparing White colleague Mike Bonin’s Black child to a designer handbag... The councilman also said he has since apologized to Bonin and his family.

Then, on Friday, a video surfaced online of him engaged in a physical altercation with a community activist during a holiday event. De León said he was acting in self-defense, though an attorney for a local organizer involved in the scuffle says the councilman initiated the contact.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-10-09/full-coverage-in-leaked-audio-l-a-council-members-make-racist-comments-mock-colleagues

...holy shit.

[SunSeeker]

80. Yes, he is another in the long history of promising young candidates who flamed out.

My point was not that De Leon was such a great candidate. It was that Feinstein was so concerning that they took the leap to endorse De Leon.

[bigtree]

84. you claimed it was 'name-recognition'

...but Dianne Feinstein was just the better candidate.

You should be chagrined posting such a self-immolating example of her opposition.

[SunSeeker]

85. It was name recognition. That's how Schwarzenegger became governor.

De Leon and Feinstein were both bad candidates, as demonstrated by what we are going through now. If she had retired in 2018, that would have opened up the field to great Dem men and women, who otherwise stayed on the sidelines because they knew they couldn't fight her name recognition and huge war chest.

I see it is impossible for you to argue a point without resorting to insults. Really sad to see that about you after all these years. I though you were better than that. I guess this is the first time you and I have disagreed about something, so I never experienced that side of you. Oh well.

[bigtree]

94. I'm not usually polite with people spreading disinformation about our Democratic legislators

...and I especially despise the ageist lies.

Your mileage may vary.

[SunSeeker]

95. I did not say anything factually incorrect about Diane Feinstein.

Last edited Fri Apr 14, 2023, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Personally attacking people who bring up facts about her you don't like does not help your attempt to refute those facts. It is not a sign of loyalty, it's a sign you have a weak argument.

[nevergiveup]

12. The United States Senate is broken.

[Hortensis]

102. Deliberately broken by the Republicans. Not by this,

which has been a fairly common occurrence over the centuries. And parties have always sought to manipulate situations to their party's advantage. That hasn't and never will change.

[grantcart]

13. Your title misrepresents the article

The article only outlines possible moves by GOP.

On the one hand the GOP hasn't indicated that they will object to a replacement and on the other hand they haven't indicated that they would accept Sinema. The latter doesn't make much sense because Sinema is contrarian on budget and other issues and quite liberal on judges.

[SunSeeker]

14. No it doesn't. Sinema is the only person the GOP has suggested.

And they have definitely made it clear that they won't let Schumer replace Feinstein with anyone he chooses. I wish I was wrong, but I'm not, especially now that the King of Obstruction, Mitch McConnell, is returning to the Senate on Monday.

[grantcart]

18. Reread the article. The GOP Senate caucus hasn't indicated ani.

The "writer" said "some":GOP have suggested Sinema and a single Senator (Kramer from ND) has indicated he would like her better than others but doesn't even commit to supporting her, your manufactured title completely misrepresents what the article suggests as there is NO groundswell of committed support for Sinema ( nor is there any indication that they plan to use the rule to obstruct the reappointment. The only indication that there is a "GOP" position is your title.

As McConnell is the only one who would be able to forge a GOP and he hasn't yet returned I don't expect any 'GOP position" until he returns.

So what is the real point of this gossipy article that is weak on any actual substance. My guess is that given the fawning over Sinema it really smells like another one of Sinema's tawdry self promotions to try and force the Dems to appoint her.

[SunSeeker]

20. The Senate caucus hasn't yet, but GOP Senators have, as the article notes.

You can choose to ignore it if you like. But I think we Dems should acknowledge reality and develop a strategy on how to deal with this Republican obstruction. THAT is my point. I sure as fuck am not promoting Sinema. You're the one calling her liberal on judicial appointments, I'm not.

McConnell is returning on Monday, that's only 3 days away.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. We're not "ignoring it"; we've read the article, and are correcting your misleading headline

Your headline talks of the "GOP" as if there's been a party decision; there hasn't. "Some Republicans" call Sinema "a good fit"; that does not mean they "won't let" the replacement be anyone else. One named senator said he has lots of ideas for Democrats, and that Sinema is "as good as any". Again, that in no way means he "won't let" anyone else be appointed.

It's your extrapolation from that thin evidence that they will obstruct. Sure, it's a possibility; but it's just your personal guess, not "reality". FWIW, it's your article that notes "she has a perfect record of voting for Biden’s judges".

[SunSeeker]

24. It's not misleading. I'm citing the "evidence" the articles states.

I didn't say it was a party decision. I just used GOP as a short word for Republicans.

It just takes 1 Republican to block whoever Schumer wants to appoint. The GOP douchebag asking for Sinema is all it takes.

Maybe we can avoid this obstruction if Feinstein is replaced altogether:

It’s not unusual for committee assignments to change at this point in a Congress: According to Michael Thorning, the director of structural democracy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, only three of the last 15 Congresses over the past 30 years did not have some kind of assignment change in the middle of a session. But this is typically due to a senator’s resignation or death, with a new successor appointed or elected to replace them.

“The primary complication is the unprecedented nature of a temporary replacement. The Senate would be setting a new precedent that has not been available to extended-absent senators in the past,” Thorning said in an email, highlighting the absences of senators like Fetterman and former Senators Mark Kirk and Tim Johnson, who both experienced serious medical issues while in office.

https://newrepublic.com/article/171906/replacing-feinstein-headache-democrats-judiciary

[Celerity]

28. I think the issue the other posters have is that there is not the word 'possibly' added about

Sinema. Zero guarantees they would even allow Curtsy Thee Indie to temp replace Feinstein.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Again, no-one was quoted as saying it should be Sinema

They just said she was one possibility. It's only you who is projecting that to "won't let anyone else" take the place.

Using "GOP" as a short word for "some Republicans" is not great, especially when it's then a claim about what they will do, when they haven't said that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

44. See my reply #39

The senate must vote on any replacement to the judiciary committee , whether temporary or permanent.

[grantcart]

29. Not ignoring anything. The "GOP" hasn't developed a position on

How they are going to react to Feinstein's leaving the committee. All that is reported is a single GOP Senator saying favorable things about Sinema, but even he doesn't commit to supporting her.

During Biden's record of approving judges Sinema has approved everyone so why in the world would they want her on the committee? Sinema in the other hand would be delighted so it is more logical that this unsubstantiated fluff piece was engineered by her or staff than the result of actual movement by GOP Senators. In any case your title for the OP does not reflect what was reported.

After having knocked on more doors in Tucson than anyone else in Sinema's first campaign I have been highly critical of Sinema, her strongest critic in the AZ group, before it was popular and have supported my Congressman Gallego here before anyone else was talking about him.

I am not ignoring anything but you are. Your title ignores what is actually written in the article by suggesting that what one GOP has suggested is an actual GOP position and your analysis ignores that this is favorable gossip for Sinema, exactly the kind of garbage that the POS Senator loves to promote.

I don't believe that the GOP is going to let any fill Feinstein's seat.

I do believe that Sinema will continue to advance rumors that she thinks will help her

[Demsrule86]

52. And you think the GOP who refused to confirm Merrick Garland will do anything to help

us get judges? I don't. They will block the judges which we can't allow.

[grantcart]

76. No, That is my point

The Republicans aren't going to agree to anyone, including Sinema.

There is nothing in the article that suggests Republicans have agreed to a replacement, it is the OPs imagination.

I believe that the article is prompted by gossip out of the narcissistic monster Sinema's office. It promotes the poison that Sinema is a valuable bridge for the Democrats.

It's exactly the same drivel that her office puts out on a daily basis.

I think you have to be very gullible to believe that the Republicans are going to agree to anyone including Sinema.

[Demsrule86]

50. Oh please, the GOP will most certainly do everything in their power to prevent Biden

appointing judges. Let's get real here...it is what they do.

[grantcart]

77. Exactly, they are not going to approve of Sinema which is what the OP is promoting.

[SunSeeker]

87. They are only naming Sinema to obstruct, since they know Dems won't want to appoint her.

They don't give a shit about Sinema or bipartisanship. Their proposal is all about keeping Biden judges from being nominated.

[grantcart]

97. LoL there is no "they". One senator mentioned her name but made no

Commitment whatsoever to agree to Sinema.

They are not going to agree to fill Feinstein's seat (and we wouldn't do it if the roles were reversed. Your headline does not reflect the essence of the article, there is no GOP agreement to agree to Sinema. The most likely trigger for this story is Sinema's office.

You can have the last reply in this thread and when the GOP blocks Feinstein's replacement I will return with an "I told you so".

[SunSeeker]

100. It's not just "one senator."

From the article:

Republicans have expressed more willingness to support a centrist candidate. Some have said a good fit would be Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat-turned-independent who has warm relationships with many in the GOP.

Of course there is no official aggreement. There is no GOP agreement to do anything but obstruct. They don't even have a party platform.

Did you really mean to say, "The most likely trigger for this story is Sinema's office." You think Sinema planted this story? LOL

I am not disputing that the GOP will block Feinstein's replacement. That's clearly what their response to Feinstein's request for a temporary replacement will be. This story about them suggesting Sinema confirms it. Asking for Sinema is just a fig leaf they will use to cover their obstruction.

[TomDaisy]

17. Did Feinstein not foresee this????? What is her position now?

[grantcart]

19. Sen Feinstein is suffering from advanced Alzheimer's and has

Difficulty remembering many recent events, like if she is running for re election or not. She is currently under medical care and it is possible she will not return to the Senate at all.

[bigtree]

33. that's just false.

...it's not supportable by anything other than clickbait rumor and ONE reporter who says she forgot something.

What she's suffering from is a bad case of shingles that had her hospitalized. If you read her statement it explains that she's still recovering at home.

Forgetfullness isn't alzheimers, what my father suffered from. It just isn't. For one thing, it requires more than an internet diagnosis based on anonymous anecdotal accounts used to fill out secondhand reporting.

It is a disease that's said to be definitively undiagnosable except in an autopsy. There may well be indicators, and doctors can establish the illness based on a number of conditions, but forgetfulness alone, no matter if you gather up a half dozen or so anecdotes about this busy Senator, isn't even a cursory diagnosis of the disease.

Early signs and symptoms of Alzheimer's dementia include:

Memory impairment, such as difficulty remembering events
Difficulty concentrating, planning or problem-solving
Problems finishing daily tasks at home or at work, such as writing or using eating utensils
Confusion with location or passage of time
Having visual or space difficulties, such as not understanding distance in driving, getting lost or misplacing items
Language problems, such as word-finding problems or reduced vocabulary in speech or writing
Using poor judgment in decisions
Withdrawal from work events or social engagements
Changes in mood, such as depression or other behavior and personality changes
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/alzheimers-disease/in-depth/alzheimers/art-20048075

Ffs.

Feinstein Statement on Returning to Washington Apr 12 2023

San Francisco—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on her medical diagnosis and when she plans to return to Washington:

“When I was first diagnosed with shingles, I expected to return by the end of the March work period. Unfortunately, my return to Washington has been delayed due to continued complications related to my diagnosis.

“I intend to return as soon as possible once my medical team advises that it’s safe for me to travel. In the meantime, I remain committed to the job and will continue to work from home in San Francisco.

“I understand that my absence could delay the important work of the Judiciary Committee, so I’ve asked Leader Schumer to ask the Senate to allow another Democratic senator to temporarily serve until I’m able to resume my committee work.”

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=AFA905EA-7D5C-4903-9693-D03DD5BBE7C1

[Marius25]

41. It's not false. It's been reported by people who interact with her

that she has severe memory issues.

Dianne Feinstein, the oldest member of the United States Senate, is struggling to recognize colleagues, follow policy discussions, and carry out the duties of her office, people close to the California Democrat told the San Francisco Chronicle Thursday. “It’s bad,” one Democratic senator told the paper, referring to Feinstein’s memory. “And it’s getting worse.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/report-dianne-feinstein-memory-rapidly-deteriorating

[ripcord]

45. There has been no dianosis of Alzhiemer's

You are spreading false information about a senator who deserves our respect and should be ashamed.

[Marius25]

47. I didn't say she was diagnosed with Alzheimers.

But she does have memory issues according to all reports.

[bigtree]

48. it is absolutely false.

...here's the substance of this tripe of an article that doesn't have ONE, not fucking ONE person willing to be quoted saying what this article claims.

According to lawmakers and former staffers cited in the report, Feinstein’s memory is “rapidly deteriorating.” The 88-year-old lawmaker has, at times, seemed to have difficulty recognizing longtime colleagues, recalling conversations and complicated policy, and “can no longer fulfill her job duties without her staff doing much of the work required to represent the nearly 40 million people of California,” according to the Chronicle. Some Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Alex Padilla, the junior senator from California, disputed the report, telling the paper that she is continuing to execute her responsibilities, calling suggestions about her mental acuity “unconscionable” and “ridiculous.”

"Alzheimers" isn't even mentioned in the article.

Stop spreading misinformation about Democrats.

[Marius25]

49. I'm not spreading misinformation.

Cut out the personal attacks.

Are you going to accuse Chuck Schumer of lying too?

https://abc7.com/dianne-feinstein-ca-senators-senate-judiciary-committe-chuck-schumer/8671919/

The report also says that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had conversations with Feinstein about her stepping aside as a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

However, the problem was reportedly compounded when Feinstein "seemed to forget about the conversations soon after they talked, so Schumer had to confront her again."

https://www.businessinsider.com/chuck-schumer-diane-feinstein-good-number-discussions-fitness-to-serve-2022-4

Chuck Schumer says he's 'had a good number of discussions' with Dianne Feinstein but won't say if he thinks she's fit to serve

[bigtree]

53. Schumer has said nothing in that article or anywhere else about her memory

...or anything else, other than replacing her on the committee.

It's secondhand rumor from a local news station, just like the other article you posted above.

Then you posted a right wing publication article that actually says Schumer didn't opine on her mental state, while making a similar attempt to smear the Senator.

You and Feinstein's political opponents alike can claim whatever they want, but it's not supportable by anything other than these rumored reports without ANY attribution other than anonymous whispers and other prattle.

It's shameful, and it's a goddamn injustice to the Senator.

[Marius25]

55. How is it an injustice?

No 90 year old with health issues should be serving in the Senate. I don't care if they're Democratic, Republican, Independent, male or female.

I say the same thing about people like Chuck Grassley. He should resign.

But since you keep personally attacking me, I'm putting you on block.

[Scrivener7]

59. Characterizing people here who think a sick 90 year old should retire as "Feinstein's political

opponents" is just divisive nonsense.

They aren't her political opponents. They are people who agree with her politics and think she should retire because they have seen things that make them question her fitness. Things like when she asked a question in a hearing, got an answer, then immediately asked the exact same question, with the same inflection because she forgot she had already asked the question a moment before.

It isn't shameful. It is people who disagree with you and have good reasons for doing so.

You can disagree without insulting your allies.

[bigtree]

60. characterizing a bad case of shingles as memory loss problems is political sophistry

...at best.

Advantaging whatever politics you're practicing on her recent illness is despicable. Basing your opposition to the Democratic Senator on flimsy and false reporting is just sad.

You really think you can cover up the myriad political screeds that have been sparked by a false take on a Politico article and claim this is about some concern for the Senator? Everyone can see the politics for themselves. It's absurd to try and twist it into some grievance against people pointing that out.

[Scrivener7]

61. Lol! You knew as you were writing that that it was ridiculous.

No one is characterizing her shingles as memory loss problems. You are fully well aware that people are characterizing her memory loss problems as memory loss problems.

And again, maybe you could try that again and see if you can make it through a post without insulting your allies. I am not "advantaging" any politics on her recent illness, whatever that means. Nor am I despicable. Nor are the years of reports and public evidences of her memory loss flimsy or false.

[bigtree]

66. you're actually compounding unfounded rumor from clickbait articles

...don't pretend there's something righteous about it.

Some Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Alex Padilla, the junior senator from California, disputed the report, telling the paper that she is continuing to execute her responsibilities, calling suggestions about her mental acuity “unconscionable” and “ridiculous.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/report-dianne-feinstein-memory-rapidly-deteriorating

Is Nancy Pelosi insulting you, too?

[Scrivener7]

62. I see you have updated your post. And I see that, once again, you seem unable

to write a post without hurling irrational insults and baseless accusations of nefarious acts at your allies.

Have a lovely day.

[bigtree]

65. when you attack our senior Senator with false and despicable innuendo

...you get as good as you give out.

I don't know why you think anyone should be sanguine and polite about it. I really don't know why the lies are allowed to proliferate here.

[newdayneeded]

92. she announced she wouldn't seek reelection

then 1 or 2 days later a reporter asked her about the announcement and she shot back with "I'm still undecided".

[Samrob]

22. Why can't she vote remotely or by proxy? nt

[SunSeeker]

26. Proxy voting is not permitted in the Senate for roll call votes, only during committee business.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/absent-senators-pairs-proxies-and-procedure/

Apparently, voting on judicial nominees is a roll call vote.


Makes no sense to me.

[Celerity]

27. She needs to step down from the Senate if she is not coming back soon. In theory she could end up

Last edited Fri Apr 14, 2023, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

blocking all of Biden’s judicial nominees if she simply refuses to come back whilst still refusing to resign as well.

The Rethugs will not allow a Democratic temporary replacement on the Judiciary Committee, and we do not have the votes to break their inevitable filibuster.

I would have said the exact same thing about Fetterman or anyone else in a like-for-like position, provided we could replace them with another Democratic Senator (like we can with Feinstein).

This is all bigger than one person.

[Demsrule86]

40. We have a very tough Senate map in 24 too. We could lose the Senate...

Both Tester and Manchin are up and we have Sinema running as an independent...will run third party most likely. Feinstein must resign if we can't put judges on the court period. Judges as we have seen are more important than one person. I don't understand why people don't see this. She should never have been put on that committee...but hindsight is 2020

[vercetti2021]

30. Sigh

I love DiFi she's been a very good Senator but this is just going to screw us just like how Ruth should have when Obama had a majority. No sense of hanging on especially when you are diagnosed with dementia. Shes had a bitchin career but there is no harm in stepping down now to make sure Bidens judicial appointments are confirmed.

Same goes for Grassley McConnell those old fucking fossils need to go too.

[bigtree]

32. that's not fact

...and it's not presented as fact in the article you posted.

It's speculation, for whatever political motive.

[Demsrule86]

51. Do you really think the GOP will help us get judges? We have a tough Senate map

and should do what we must to get as many judges now as we can. If that means the Senator needs to resign...then she must do so ASAP for the good of the party and the nation.

[bigtree]

56. it's overblown. Feinstein isn't actually responsible for the logjam

Axios:

Even if Republicans don't acquiesce to replacing Feinstein, that doesn't stop Democrats from confirming nearly 20 judicial nominees already advanced out of Judiciary, noted Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

"This all seems a bit premature," he told Axios, "given how many judicial nominees are sitting on the executive calendar. It'll take the Senate a while ... to get through everyone who has already been voted out of committee."

Many of the nominees still before the committee could garner enough GOP support to not be affected, according to a source familiar with the process, who said just a handful of party-line appointments are at risk.

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/13/dems-substitute-feinstein-judiciary-committee

[Demsrule86]

63. 20 judges are nothing compared to the number we could get if she was back...she needs to

resign. And I don't trust Axios...there is no way GOP committee members will vote for judges if they have a way to stop them. That is how they roll.

[bigtree]

64. you took a factual report and you just made stuff up

...that's called misinformation.

Directing it at me is a wasted effort.

[pinkstarburst]

79. She needs to resign

I'm sorry. She has had a long and distinguished career, but it is incredibly selfish of her to put her personal desire to stay in office and drag this out when she can't actually come to the office and do her damn job over the 330 million people in the nation who are depending on the votes she is missing, and who need the democratic Biden judges who are not getting approved while she is not there.

We may not win the White House in 2024. I hate to say it. I hope we do. But we have to prepare the next year and a half as if we might not and that means getting every single judge we can in place NOW. Just like republicans did when they had power for four years.

We may not control the Senate after 2024. I hope we still do, but the math isn't promising. It is CRUCIAL that we do not waste a day, do not squander one judge of Biden's that we could get on the bench. To do so just because some people don't want to offend the sensibilities of a 90 year old who is too sick to come to work and STILL REFUSES to gracefully resign is morally reprehensible. There are women and children counting on the votes of that CA senate position. LGBT people and disabled people who need those judges to make good rulings. POC who are in danger every day.

We lost RBG's seat to a right wing justice because she would not step down during Obama's term. Just awful.

Feinstein needs to step down. And it is not ageism or sexism to say so.

[SunSeeker]

89. +1

[SunSeeker]

104. It appears GOP will allow Schumer to replace Feinstein on Judicary if she resigns.

“It’s the temporary substitution which is the unprecedented ask,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a GOP member of the Judiciary Committee, told HuffPost. “If she were no longer a senator, yes.” https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dianne-feinstein-democrats-gerontocracy_n_64408a35e4b0d84038864bc9

[Renew Deal]

34. I can't understand why changing committee members is subject to filibuster.

Seems like a dumb rule.

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. The senate is filled with dumb rules. Nt

[Mr.Bill]

83. Yes, it's starting to look like

McConnell gets to make all the Democratic appointments to Senate committees from here on.

[Nixie]

37. This war on Feinstein is a lot of hokum from the group not

concerned about the Supreme Court when it was on the line in a presidential election.

Now they’re using judges as an excuse to hoodwink California voters into handing over a senate seat without making their own selection in an election. There’s a name for this maneuver…

[Demsrule86]

43. Not getting judges when may lose the Senate...could also cost us our Republic in 2024.

The 2024 Senatorial map is horrific, and judges must be put on the bench now.

[SunSeeker]

74. THIS

[onenote]

98. Then shouldn't we be screaming at Schumer?

There are 13 District Court nominees and five appeals court nominees that were approved by Committee before Feinstein became unavailable. Why haven't they been put before the full Senate for confirmation? After all, with McConnell out, it only would have taken 48 Democrats to push through a nomination.

[Hotler]

57. Oh well, might as well give in.......... nt

[NotVeryImportant]

71. Why is the GOP fighting tooth and nail to keep Feinstein exactly. where. she. is?

Hint: Because they know they're advantaged by it.

Feinstein needs to go.

[ZonkerHarris]

90. Republicans always have to prove that their scum over and over again. done

[Delphinus]

93. My first thought

was eff that sh&t.

[Cha]

96. She's NOT a Dem. Fuck This

Bullshit!@

[onenote]

99. Assuming this true, Sinema has never voted against a Biden judicial nomination.

i have my doubts as to whether this is more than the view of a single Republican, but if the concern is with Biden's nominees getting Judiciary approval, I doubt that Sinema would be a problem.

[SunSeeker]

101. So you think Schumer should agree to Sinema if Mitch suggests her on Monday?

If Mitch thinks for a minute we'd accept her, he'll never make that offer and will just straight up obstruct and refuse to confirm anyone but a Republican for Judiciary.

[Autumn]

105. Is she still a democrat? I thought she had switched already.

[SunSeeker]

106. She switched to Independent. nt