Feinstein pushes back on claims her absence has delayed judicial nominees, doesn't say when she will

[Omaha Steve]

Source: CNN

By Morgan Rimmer and Jessica Dean, CNN
Published 5:47 PM EDT, Thu May 4, 2023

Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday pushed back on claims that her extended absence from the Senate, and the Judiciary Committee, as she recovers from shingles has caused a significant delay in advancing and confirming judicial nominees. Feinstein indicated in the statement that she still plans to return but did not say when that would happen.

“The Senate continues to swiftly confirm highly qualified individuals to the federal judiciary, including seven more judicial nominees who were confirmed this week. There has been no slowdown,” the California Democrat said in a statement.

But she acknowledged that some nominees have been blocked from moving forward during her absence. Without Feinstein, the committee is tied. Under the power-sharing agreement in the last Congress, which had a 50-50 Senate, there was a provision that allowed for a tied nominee to be discharged from committee and put on the floor. That rule is no longer in place, according to an aide on the committee. So, unless a judge has bipartisan support, the nominee fails in committee and doesn’t come to the floor.

“I’m disappointed that Republicans on the committee are blocking a few from moving forward. I’m confident that when I return to the Senate, we will be able to move the remaining qualified nominees out of committee quickly and to the Senate floor for a vote,” she said.



Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on Capitol Hill on October 14, 2020 in Washington, DC.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/dianne-feinstein-judicial-nominees/index.html

---

Full title: Feinstein pushes back on claims her absence has delayed judicial nominees, doesn’t say when she will return

[stollen]

1. It's.time.to.retire.Dianne!

Are you in some sort of high stakes bet with Grassley??

I'm a Californian. The Dems are in battle with the Fascists. We can't afford to keep Dianne on the roster. When I voted for Dianne decades ago, I had no idea it would be for life. This is not a SCOTUS position.

[LenaBaby61]

26. REALLY THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[mcar]

34. You realize that R's can filibuster

her replacement to that committee?

[stollen]

39. what do you recommend?

RB Ginsburg waited too long, and we got 6-3.

[mcar]

40. That is an inaccurate comparison

DiFi is retiring next year. If she leaves before then, CA's Democratic governor will appoint a replacement - surely another Democrat.

However, the Judiciary committee would come to a crashing halt bc Rs will not let another Democrat be appointed to the committee in her place.

As long as she is willing and can vote "Aye" to move judges forward, that's fine with me.

[Fullduplexxx]

2. Under the power-sharing agreement in the last Congress, which had a 50-50 Senate, there was a provi

"Under the power-sharing agreement in the last Congress, which had a 50-50 Senate, there was a provision that allowed for a tied nominee to be discharged from committee and put on the floor. That rule is no longer in place,"

[dem4decades]

3. Do your job or let someone who can do it. Judges are being held up, just stop with the spin.

The Republicans are at war with the Constitution and we're playing nice because we're good people.

Might just as well give the keys to the country to the Republicans and celebrate our loyalty to our people.

[republianmushroom]

4. Time to retire, Dianne, it comes to all of us.

[Lonestarblue]

5. Feinstein is letting her ego take precedence over the needs of the country.

She has had a long and good career. It’s past time for her to resign and let someone be appointed who can actually do the work. Feinstein has not been back in the Senate since late February when she was diagnosed with shingles. Two months lost in a Senate where every Democratic vote is needed. And she doesn’t know when she’ll return, if ever. She could require several more months to recover.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

6. "Claims"? What the fuck?

Those aren't fucking "claims". Those are facts.

The GOP's even said so.

Fucking hell.

[SunSeeker]

7. This must mean she's not coming back next week.

Giving a date certain for her return would be a much better "push back." I'm sure her staff knows that.

[dsc]

8. We don't have a Labor Secretary because of her absence

she needs to either show up to work and vote or quit. She chose the Judiciary Committee knowing full well that if we lost the House, which was thought to be a virtual certainty for nearly all of 2022, the Judiciary Committee would be literally the only important game in town. Well now she is on that Committee at her insistence, so she needs to provide a date certain for her return or quit.

[onenote]

18. How so? We have a 51-49 majority. Without her, it's still 50-49

If we had all of the Democrats on board, we could confirm the nominee. The fact that the nomination hasn't been brought to the floor suggests that Schumer doesn't have all of the Democrats on board. And, in fact, it has been reported that there may be as many as four that are not prepared to vote for the nominee (Manchin, Tester, Sinema, and Kelly). If just two of them are prepared to vote no, the nomination is defeated by a 48-51 margin. And its still defeated if Feinstein is available, 49-51.

[orleans]

22. why are manchin & sinema on judiciary? can't they be replaced? nt

[onenote]

30. They're not on judiciary. This is about the Labor Secretary nomination.

That nomination isn't within Judiciary's jurisdiction. It was considered and approved by the relevant committee -the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- in late April. It now is awaiting floor action. The reason Schumer hasn't brought it to the floor isn't Feinstein's absence, its that he doesn't have the votes of the rest of the Democratic caucus. So blaming Feinstein is a simply incorrect.

[More_Cowbell]

19. The Judiciary Committee also can't issue subpoenas

Which is why someone like corrupt John Roberts can decline the committee's request to testify.

[onenote]

31. The Committee wouldn't issue a subpoena to Roberts even if Feinstein was available.

That's the reality. They're not going to pick that fight, especially after all nine justices signed onto a joint statement on ethics.

They don't need Roberts' to testify to draft, introduce and pass ethics legislation. Whether they do so will be interesting to watch.

[Earth-shine]

9. We need more from our elected leaders than sitting on committees. We need leadership.

[Rebl2]

10. So she

isn’t coming back next week like she said she would? I had to quit working in my late twenties because my rheumatoid arthritis had gotten much worse. The place I worked needed reliable help. I knew it would not be fair to them if I stayed. Why, at 90, can she not see she needs to retire.

[LudwigPastorius]

11. At this point, I have to wonder...

if these statements are coming from Senator Feinstein or from her staff.

[liberalmediaaddict]

14. Guessing it's from her staff

There's no telling what her physical and mental state is right now.
I'd be shocked if she ever returned to the Senate.

[LudwigPastorius]

16. Yes.

I think it's likely that while she was in the hospital her doctors observed that the decline in her cognitive abilities was more advanced than expected.

[pfitz59]

17. Until she steps before the camera

all her statements are presumed to be from her staff.

[Withywindle]

24. Yes, this

And that fact leads me to think she is no longer capable of serving as a Senator. I respect her. I honor her long service and her history of fighting for our causes.

There is no shame in stepping down and handing over to a successor. I wonder - is she even capable of making that decision? How far gone are her cognitive abilities? Who is holding the reins of her responsibilities as one of two Senators from our most populous state?

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Not good. Not good at all.

[Geuricol]

15. No guarantee that the GOP will allow her replacement to be seated on the judicial committee

What many people are forgetting is that there is no guarantee that the GOP will allow her replacement to be seated on the judicial committee. Senator Graham said that "of course they would because it is precedence". Well it was precedent that the Senate always considers a Supreme Court Justice nomination as well, but we all know that that precedence was simply ignored and a "new precedence" was made up that no one would be considered within a year of a presidential election. Then when Ginsburg died, that was no longer valid. The GOP cannot be trusted.

[Grins]

20. She didn't write that!

Call it a hunch, but that looks like a staff comment to dodge the fact that the few judges that were confirmed in her absence were the ones in which the minority were OK with approving, i.e., the minority is in control!

[MarcA]

21. Perhaps Feinstein doesn't approve of some of them.

This would also give cover to other D Senators who would not have to go on the record as opposing them.

[nevergiveup]

23. Doesn't she have family

to help guide her through this? If she has cognitive problems this is a terrible situation.

[Withywindle]

25. Her family has no political juridisdiction

If her mental state is not able to understand the issues fully, there's not much her family can do legally speaking. They can't override her in Senate matters.

[BlueTsunami2018]

27. I'd like to see her saying these things on video.

Because I’m having a difficult time believing she’s writing these statements. Unless I see her being interviewed, I don’t believe any of this. This is all staff.


I’d be more than happy to say I was wrong if I’m wrong.

I’m probably not wrong.

[Novara]

28. Schumer and Durbin need to fly to California and have a face-to-face talk with her

Tell her EXACTLY what she's costing Biden and the Democrats.

[Voltaire2]

29. She is literally worse than useless at this point. nt.

[NullTuples]

32. "That rule is no longer in place" - and why not?

[Jose Garcia]

33. I suspect that we are being lied to about he health status

It's not common to be hospitalized just for shingles.

[trof]

35. Why can't she see it?

Why can't she 'gracefully' retire?

Are her staff members keeping her propped up long enough for them to find other positions on capitol hill (or with a lobbying firm)?

[iemanja]

36. I'm disappointed that the Republicans are Republicans

Duh.

[Captain Zero]

37. She needs to haul her ass back in there then. Now. And vote.

She's pissing me off.

And she needs to announce this is her last term for the good of the Democratic Party, the party that sent her there to begin with. She's old and sick, sorry, but that is the truth.

Time to give it up. Enjoy a year or two retired.

Grassley too. He's an old sick fuck.
There see. I'm bipartisan on this.

[karin_sj]

38. I voted for her every time she was on the ballot...

... but it is WAY past time for her to retire. She is not serving her constituents by stubbornly staying in office. Maybe Barbara Boxer could take her place until the next election. She still seems very sharp.