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

[SunSeeker]

“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

[ColinC]

1. Good now people can stop saying it is the same either way

Because clearly it is not

[Lovie777]

2. Ya know the GQPs would have found a way to temporary.............

substitution regardless of "unprecedented".

Anywho, Schumer could know how "unprecedented" the evil GQPs are.

[wryter2000]

3. Should we trust him?

I'd get it in writing. Maybe notarized.

[Midnight Writer]

15. Just as much as we can trust Mitch.

[Cha]

19. My first thought.

[SunSeeker]

32. We can't trust any Republican. But we can assume they will act in their own interest.

It's the temporary replacement that they object to, since it's never been done before, and we've never given them that courtesy when their guys got sick. McConnell got no temporary replacement when he was out with a concussion recently. Senators have always been replaced without issue when they resign or die in office. McConnell or Grassley can keel over anytime. Republicans want to be able to replace them on committees.

Regardless, we need a functioning Dem senator for the next year and a half. Feinstein has memory issues that aren't going to get better even if she recovers from her shingles complications.

[unblock]

4. Whatever. Just nuclear option a replacement in

[FBaggins]

7. Why not just amend the constitution ?

I mean… if we’re proposing things that we don’t have the votes to accomplish. Why now aim high?

[JohnSJ]

5. Why would we trust anything the republicans say?

[chowder66]

13. Exactly. I laughed out loud when I saw the headline.

[SunSeeker]

30. When it's in their interest.

It's the temporary replacement that they object to, since it's never been done before, and we've never given them that courtesy when their guys got sick. McConnell got no temporary replacement when he was out with a concussion recently. Senators have always been replaced without issue when they resign or die in office. McConnell or Grassley can keel over anytime. Republicans want to be able to replace them on committees.

[RockRaven]

6. Oh sure, let's rely upon a promise from those people! What could go wrong?

[JohnSJ]

9. +++

[rso]

8. Feinstein

Wait, if Feinstein resigns and Newsom appoints a new Senator, why would the GQP have any say on who Schumer places on the Committee ? What am I missing ?

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. Senate rules require a vote of the full senate to approve committee assignments

Which is subject to filibuster, including for vacancies.

[SunSeeker]

33. Republicans have always approved replacements upon resignation or death of the senator.

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

If Republicans establish the precedent that replacing a dead or resigned senator on a committee requires 60 votes, it will bite them in the ass when McConnell or Grassley keel over. They expect to take over the Senate majority in 2024, and that could prevent them from controlling committees.

[BootinUp]

10. Lucy could still appear. Nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Should republicans be trusted?

How do we know there won’t be some strings and conditions attached to that statement by Cornyn?

[inthewind21]

14. Oh well hell

Sure, let's force a DEM, DiFi, to resign because that will not only make all the DEMS calling for her head happy it will ensure republicans will play nice! Sure thing, DO IT NOW!

[MyOwnPeace]

16. I like what Tiedrich said.......

When the fuck are Democrats going to learn how to fight back

there’s always some fucking Democrat gumming up the works, eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, always making it impossible for their fellow Dems to get anything done.
it’s maddening.
some days it’s Joe Manchin. if it’s not Joe Manchin, it’s Kyrsten Sinema. if it’s not Kyrsten Sinema, it’s Dick Durbin.
this week, Republicans are once again up to their usual antics.
Senate Republicans blocked a simple request from an ailing Democratic colleague Tuesday, refusing to allow Sen. Dianne Feinstein to temporarily step away from her seat on the Judiciary Committee while she continues to recover from a serious illness. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer put the request on the floor, asking for unanimous consent for Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin to serve as the interim committee member, and Sen. Lindsey Graham objected, filibustering Feinstein’s request.
breaking news: Republicans fucking suck.
so now, lacking a majority, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are powerless to get anything done. they can’t confirm judges. they can’t hold hearings. they can’t investigate Clarence Thomas.
time for some retaliation, right? time to fight fire with fire? it’s not like the Democrats are completely helpless here:
You would think that right now would be a great time for Committee Chair Dick Durbin to announce that he was no longer honoring blue slips in retaliation for the Republicans blocking a Feinstein replacement.
You would be thinking wrong. After the blocked vote, Durbin told Huffington Post: “We’re not at that point yet” of abandoning the blue slip tradition.
what?
why not?
why the fuck not?
over and over, we see this same scenario play out.
once again, Republicans have pulled down the Democrats’ pants, taken their lunch money, and stuffed them into a locker.
and once again, Democrats have responded with “maybe if we’re nice to them, next time for sure they’ll stop beating us up.”
oh fucking please.
Democrats, please wake the fuck up. Marjorie Three Brain Cells is literally calling you pedophiles and you’re still out here tut-tutting with your “my esteemed colleague from Georgia” bullshit as if you’re a bunch of extras in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.
Democrats, you’re getting rocks chucked at your heads. pick one the fuck up and chuck it back.
I promise you, it will feel good.
represent us.
please.

[inthewind21]

25. BEST. POST. EVER!

[onenote]

31. Before you rant, you should get your facts straight.

You wrote: now, lacking a majority, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are powerless to get anything done. they can’t confirm judges. they can’t hold hearings.

This week the Committee reported 7 of the ten nominees that were on the agenda when Feinstein became ill.

A majority isn't needed to hold hearings on nominees. During Feinstein's absence (including just this week) the Committee held hearings on nominees. Two of those nominees are on the agenda for a Committee vote to be held next week.

While Feinstein was out, the full Senate confirmed over a dozen judicial nominees.

There still are (including the seven just reported), over 20 nominations that were approved by the Committee but haven't been submitted to the Senate for a vote. Even without Feinstein, the Democrats have a 50-49 majority in the Senate.

And the Committee can start an investigation of Thomas without having a majority; despite what some have claimed, the Committee leadership has no intention of starting that investigation with a subpoena, which would be poor strategy.

Facts matter.

[SunSeeker]

34. Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin said Feinstein's absence is impacting judge confirmations.

 Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin agreed that Feinstein's current absence is impacting the process of confirming judicial nominees. The committee is split 10-10 with Feinstein missing, with Durbin telling CNN that he currently cannot "consider nominees in these circumstances because a tie vote is a losing vote."

https://www.newsweek.com/dianne-feinstein-resign-senate-votes-judges-1793885

[onenote]

35. And yet a week later, they considered and approved 7 of the ten nominees that were on the agenda

There are 13 nominations that haven't been voted on by the Committee. Two were just nominated this week, six were nominated at the end of February and in March and are just now getting hearings, something that Feinstein's absence did not impact since a majority isn't needed to hold hearings on nominees. That leaves five nominations that were made in January 2023. Two of those actually were made back in September and November of 2022 but weren't acted on and were resubmitted by President at the start of the new Congress on January 3. Feinstein's absence didn't prevent them from being acted on last year or earlier this year when she was around.

And as noted, after Feinstein became ill, the Senate still confirmed 14 nominations. There are over 20 nominations that have been approved by the committee that Durbin hasn't brought to the floor even though the Democrat have a majority of the full Senate whether or not Feinstein is available.e

Could Durbin be trying to deflect attention from that fact?

[SunSeeker]

36. I trust Dick Durbin. nt

[Autumn]

40. Facts do matter. If the Pukes voted for those nominees they wanted them on the bench

Not because they are are fair and balanced judges.

[onenote]

41. So Biden has nominated 108 RINOs out of 118 confirmed judges?

That's the number of confirmed Biden judicial nominees that received one or more Republican votes.

I guess yous hope he stops nominating judges.

[ecstatic]

55. +1k

[UTUSN]

17. K&R

[bigtree]

18. this isn't an assurance of anything

..ONE republican senator who has blocked a replacement because, they would 'ram through' nominees, making a promise isn't something you'd normally nexpect a Democratic community to pay heed to, much less use it against our Democratic Senator, but here we are.

Go on and tell us how a progressive Barbara Lee (Newsome promised to appoint a 'black woman,') or a Katie Porter or Adam Schiff gets their vote to undo the organizing resolution?

C'mom, tell us you're taking the word of Cornyn on this, not withstanding that he's just ONE of them making this baiting promise to do away with the Democratic Senator from California?

The shit that passes for Democratic advocacy these days... now we have a republican's word presented here in opposition to the Democratic senator telling us it's fine and dandy to jettision her as ransom payment for the hijacking of that seat.

Go on and tell us how fine and dandy it is for the party to be led around by the bullying tactics of Cornyn and his ilk. You're taking his word. Go on and tell us how trustworthy he is.

[SunSeeker]

20. What is the downside of Feinstein resigning and being replaced by an able Dem?

At least then I'll have a senator who can perform the rest of the job, even if Cornyn is lying.

But I don't think Cornyn is lying. They have an eye on McConnell or Grassley having to resign for health reasons as well, and will want to be able to replace them on committees. It's the temporary replacement that they object to, since it's never been done before. Senators have always been replaced without issue when they resign or die in office.

Regardless, CA, and the country, needs to have a functioning Democratic senator for the next year and a half. Feinstein has memory issues and that will not get better, even after she recovers from her shingles complications.

[edisdead]

22. Why does she need to be replaced?

What consequential votes has she missed?

[SunSeeker]

27. See post 26.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17848218

[edisdead]

38. consequential meaning

consequential meaning which judges were not appointed because of her?

[SunSeeker]

44. I don't know their names. You'd have to ask Dick Durbin. nt

[edisdead]

51. but you know the number?

How many consequential votes?

[inthewind21]

28. huh

"But I don't think Cornyn is lying. They have an eye on McConnell or Grassley having to resign for health reasons as well, and will want to be able to replace them on committees. It's the temporary replacement that they object to, since it's never been done before. Senators have always been replaced without issue when they resign or die in office."

This sounds eerily like all the "But I don't they are lying. The would never gut ROE, it's settled law. They said so!

[SunSeeker]

29. No, it's nothing like that. The GOP wants to be able to replace McConnell and Grassley.

Every Republican wanted to overturn Roe v Wade, so we knew they were lying about that.

Again, what's the downside to replacing Feinstein with an able Dem?

[LiberalFighter]

21. How about if Feinstein resigns from the committee?

[edisdead]

23. again. Why should she?

What consequential votes has she missed?

[SunSeeker]

26. Feinstein has missed 25 judicial nominee votes, which is HIGHLY consequential.

We may (many analysts say we likely will) lose the Senate in 2024.
The next year and a half may be our last chance to get Dems on federal courts until 2029. https://www.newsweek.com/dianne-feinstein-resign-senate-votes-judges-1793885

[onenote]

37. She missed 14 votes on the Senate floor and the nominee was confirmed in each.

She missed votes on 11 nominees at the committee level. Eight of them have been approved.


Facts.

[SunSeeker]

42. When we don't have the votes, we don't bother holding a vote.

The committee is split 10-10 with Feinstein missing, as Durbin said, and we cannot "consider nominees in these circumstances because a tie vote is a losing vote."

Facts.

[onenote]

45. There are only 13 nominees awaiting committee action.

Four haven't had hearings yet (including two nominated just this week, one nominated on March 21 and one nominated in late February). Feinstein's absence hasn't impacted those nominations since her absence doesn't impact the ability to hold hearings and a hearing is a prerequisite to a vote.

In addition, there are three other nominations that were submitted on March 21 that, because of the recess, not Feinstein's absence, just had hearings this week.

And one other nominee who hasn't had a hearing, Scott Colom, is being held up not because of Feinstein's absence, but because Sen. Durbin is honoring the "blue slip" objection of the republican senator Hyde-Smith of Mississippi.


That leaves five nominations have had hearings but haven't been considered by the Committee. Why haven't they been considered yet? Charnel Bjelkengren had her hearing in January and Kato Crews had his in March. Both did not perform well, raising questions about the viability of their nominations on the Senate floor. Amanda Brailsford also did not have a hearing until March 22. It's not clear what is holding up her nomination since she has the support of the two Republicans from Idaho. It's also not clear what is holding up Marian Gaston's nomination. Finally, Michael Delaney, who had a hearing in mid-February, hasn't gotten a committee vote because of opposition from some Democrats over his previous defense of parental notification laws.

In short, there are reasons why 13 nominations haven't yet been voted on by the committee, but those reasons largely have little or nothing to do with Feinstein's absence, but rather are attributable to their being too recent to even have had a hearing or only having had a hearing this past week, blue-slip opposition to the nominations, or questions about the nominee's ability to get enough Democrats on the senate floor to be confirmed.

[SunSeeker]

46. I don't know where you get your info, but Dick Durbin disagrees with you.

I'm trust Dick Durbin.

[onenote]

47. You can look up any and all of those dates on the Judiciary Committee website.

There are more than 20 nominations that have been approved by the Committee but haven't been voted on by the full Senate. Durbin should be pressuring Schumer if he's concerned about nominations not getting confirmed. He can't blame that on Feinstein.

[SunSeeker]

48. Those dates don't reflect how many nominees Durbin has waiting in the wings.

Durbin is not blaming Feinstein for the committee-approved nominees waiting for Senate votes.

Your suggestion that Durbin doesn't care if nominees are getting voted on in the Senate is false and has no place here. I am sure Durbin and Schumer talk regularly.

If Durbin doesn't have 11 votes, he doesn't bother scheduling a committee vote. He doesn't want good nominees getting voted down and having to start all over. He wants to hold back voting on a nominee until he has the votes to get that nominee out of committee. And right now he doesn't have the votes. We do have some nominees who got out of committee before Feinstein got sick, and those are being scheduled for Senate floor votes. But then after them, we've got nothing. The judicial nominee conveyor belt coming out of the Judiciary Committee has come to a stop because of Feinstein's absence.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin previously acknowledged to CNN that Feinstein’s absence has slowed down their push to confirm nominees.

“I can’t consider nominees in these circumstances because a tie vote is a losing vote in committee,” Durbin said.

Asked if her absence has longer ramifications on the Democrats’ ability to confirm nominees, the Senate chairman said “yes, of course it does,” pointing to the long process of getting nominees scheduled for votes during precious floor time.

“We still have some nominees left on the calendar that we can work on … But we have more in the wings that we would like to process through the committee,” Durbin said.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/10/politics/biden-judges-senate-blue-slips-absences/index.html


So if you're saying there are 20 Judiciary Committee approved nominees waiting for Senate floor votes, that means Durbin has even more than 20 "in the wings that we would like to process through the committee" but they can't because of Feinstein's absence.

And then there is the whole matter of Feinstein's memory issues, even if she recovers from her shingles complications. The 40 million residents of California deserve 2 functioning Democratic senators. They shouldn't have to wait for that for almost 2 years.

[FBaggins]

49. The numbers are public - you can't just imagine dozens "in the wings"

There are currently 78 vacancies in the federal judiciary, but the president has only nominated someone for 36 of those slots.

Of those... 25 are already on the Senate floor waiting for final votes. Which means that those "wings" are awfully small... and include a number of "blue slip" candidates who are not being held up by Feinstein's absence.

There are not, in fact, "more than 20 in the wings"... there are between five and ten.

[SunSeeker]

53. I don't think Dick Durbin is lying. nt

[FBaggins]

54. Nobody does - but your active imagination is not "what Durbin said"

“More” would be true if the number were just one or two. You’ve imagined that he’s saying “more than what we’ve already approved”.

But - once again - it’s ridiculous to debate what you think he meant or point out that the statement preceded the seven who were just approved… because there are no imaginary judges or classified lists. This is all public knowledge. I’ve provided a summary link below, but there are others that list every court opening by date, who has been nominated, and where they are in the process.

There are currently 13 nominations pending in committee. Some are blocked by blue slips, some are too new to have even had a hearing… five were ready for a vote and held back because Feinstein wasn’t there.

https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/priorities_policy/independence_of_the_judiciary/judicial_vacancies/

[SunSeeker]

56. Asked if her absence is affecting confirmations, Durbin said, "yes, of course it does."

Even if it's just 5 as you contend, that is huge. It took just one federal judge, Kacsmaryk, to throw Mifepristone into limbo, the drug needed for over half of abortions and to treat miscarriages.

Women's lives are too important to let even 5 judges not get immediately confirmed. We may not have the Senate in 2024, there are twice as many Dems are up for reelection than Republicans. https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2024

We simply don't have time to waste.

[FBaggins]

57. Easy way for you to prove that "it's huge"

Please tell us the last time that there were fewer than 13 judicial appointees waiting in committee.

[SunSeeker]

58. Women's lives are at stake. Any time we have even 1 nominee needlessly waiting is wrong.

I get it, you don't think it's a big deal. I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that I think it is.

[FBaggins]

59. It should be even easier for you to prove that

Since five federal judges are so critical (or “even one”), you must have scores of posts here criticizing the president, right?

There are dozens of currently empty seats that have not even received a nomination. Some of them have been empty for well over a year! You must be livid at Biden’s failure to recognize that women’s lives are at stake!

And Schumer must have received hundreds of furious posts from you. Twenty-five appointees have made it through the gauntlet of the committee yet they have not received a floor vote!

That’s unacceptable! Who cares that their combined record is one of the best in history?

[onenote]

50. The only ones "waiting in the wings" are the 13 nominated but not yet approved by Committee

And in most of those instances, Feinstein's absence has nothing to do with why the Committee has advanced those nominees yet, as explained in detail below:

Three of the thirteen were on the agenda this week. Although the Committee advanced 7 other nominees, those three were held for a later meeting. The three that were pulled from a vote included Michael Delaney, who has run into opposition from some Democrats. See https://apnews.com/article/biden-judicial-nominee-delaney-abortion-new-hampshire-68f2a0ed839c743873a16924a8bce148

The other two that were pulled were Charnelle Bjelkengren and Marian Gaston. Both of them had rather rough hearings which may or may not have contributed to the decision not to move their nominations forward.

That leaves ten other nominees "waiting in the wings". Why haven't they been scheduled for a vote? Well, two were nominated last week and haven't had an opportunity to be scheduled for a hearing yet. Four were nominated just before the March 31 recess and of those four, one still is waiting for a hearing and the other three just had their hearing on April 18. There usually is a time lag between the hearing and the nominee being scheduled for a vote, so the fact that they haven't had a vote yet says nothing about when they'll get one and whether Feinstein's absence will matter. One (Scott Colom) was nominated last year but hasn't had a hearing because of a republican "blue slip" objection. That leaves three that have been "waiting in the wings" during Feinstein's absence in March. One, Jabari Wamble was nominated last September but the nomination never scheduled for a hearing -- that's on Durbin, not Feinstein. The other two (Brailsford and Crews) had hearings in late March and are on the agenda for a vote this coming Friday. Will they be approved? We'll find out on Friday.

The bottom line is that there are a variety of reasons that 13 nominees haven't had votes yet, ranging from their having been nominated too recently to have had a hearing yet (or stymied from having a hearing by a blue slip objection), questions about their ability to get the necessary Democratic votes on the senate floor and, maybe, but still to be determined, Feinstein's absence in Committee. We'll see how many of the nominees on the agenda for this Friday who haven't previously had a vote will be given one and will be advanced without Feinstein.

Those are the facts. As I said, the information is all publicly available.

[edisdead]

39. Which votes were actually affected?

[SunSeeker]

43. It's the votes that aren't happening because of her absence.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin previously acknowledged to CNN that Feinstein’s absence has slowed down their push to confirm nominees.

“I can’t consider nominees in these circumstances because a tie vote is a losing vote in committee,” Durbin said.

Asked if her absence has longer ramifications on the Democrats’ ability to confirm nominees, the Senate chairman said “yes, of course it does,” pointing to the long process of getting nominees scheduled for votes during precious floor time.

“We still have some nominees left on the calendar that we can work on … But we have more in the wings that we would like to process through the committee,” Durbin said.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/10/politics/biden-judges-senate-blue-slips-absences/index.html

If he doesn't have 11 votes, Durbin doesn't bother scheduling a committee vote. He doesn't want good nominees voted down and have to start all over. He wants to hold back voting on a nominee until he has the votes to get that nominee out of committee. And right now he doesn't have the votes. We apparently still have a few nominees that got out of committee before Feinstein got sick, and those are being scheduled for Senate floor votes. But then after that, we've got nothing. The judicial nominee conveyor belt coming out of the Judicary Committee has come to a stop because of Feinstein's absence.

[SunSeeker]

24. I don't think that will do it. She's still in the Senate.

Like the temporary replacement that Republicans object to, that too has never been done before, and would require 60 votes. Senators have always been replaced without issue when they resign or die in office, but not when they just choose to no longer sit on a committee, whether temporary or not.

[msfiddlestix]

52. "the GOP will allow" just makes me sick and angry n/t