If you want judges (which is supposedly what this was all about) then the best option of the bad options we have is her staying and voting. Simple as that.
— Centrism Fan Acct ?? (@Wilson__Valdez) May 19, 2023
From what ‘we’ can tell, the people who know Senator Feinstein best think she wants to die in office — and there really isn’t a good mechanism to make her give up, right now. This is suboptimal in many ways, but I can’t see an argument for breaking a loyal old fighter’s heart just to give the Republicans what they want.
Politico:
Dianne Feinstein has taken on a noticeably lighter schedule since she came back from California. She appears in the Senate only at committee hearings or on the floor when her vote is essential.
Her party is holding its collective breath as the 89-year-old returns.
As relieved as Democrats are to have her back to break the logjam on party-line judicial nominees that her absence created, they’re loath to openly discuss her condition beyond generic well wishes. Fellow senators say they aren’t hearing much from her at all.
“We need her in committee and on the floor,” Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, alluding to the need for Feinstein to vote on judicial nominees who lack any GOP support. “We’re doing our best to be sensitive to her medical condition.”
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) spoke for many of his colleagues when he said: “She’s been ill and she’s elderly. And I really shouldn’t be talking, actually, because it’s just a difficult situation.”…
Breaking News: Dianne Feinstein suffered previously undisclosed medical complications during her Senate absence, people close to her said. Many described it as “frightening” to see her operating in the Senate in her current state. https://t.co/OqerfkZPeM
— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 18, 2023
I’ll admit it’s something of a reassurance to me that Feinstein’s close friend, Nancy Pelosi, has not called for her resignation:
When she arrived at the Capitol last week after a more than two-month absence recovering from shingles, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, 89, appeared shockingly diminished…
Ms. Feinstein’s frail appearance was a result of several complications after she was hospitalized for shingles in February, some of which she has not publicly disclosed. The shingles spread to her face and neck, causing vision and balance impairments and facial paralysis known as Ramsay Hunt syndrome. The virus also brought on a previously unreported case of encephalitis, a rare but potentially debilitating complication of shingles that a spokesman confirmed on Thursday after The New York Times first revealed it, saying that the condition had “resolved itself” in March.
Characterized by swelling of the brain, post-shingles encephalitis can leave patients with lasting memory or language problems, sleep disorders, bouts of confusion, mood disorders, headaches and difficulties walking. Older patients tend to have the most trouble recovering. And even before this latest illness, Ms. Feinstein had already suffered substantial memory issues that had raised questions about her mental capacity…
Ms. Feinstein, a pioneering woman in Democratic politics who was once a major party power broker and a legislative force in the Senate, has stubbornly refused to consider leaving. The same force of will that led her nearly a decade ago to resist pressure from the Obama administration to keep secret a damning torture report still rears its head when she is confronted with calls to step down. The senator still sees the job as her calling and is no more receptive to a conversation about stepping aside than she was in 2018, when she decided to seek another term despite questions about her mental acuity.
People close to her joke privately that perhaps when Ms. Feinstein is dead, she will start to consider resigning. Over the years, she and many Democrats have bristled at the calls for her to relinquish her post, noting that such questions were rarely raised about aging male senators who remained in office through physical and cognitive struggles, even after they were plainly unable to function on their own…
Predictably, here comes the double-reverse backflip: Blame Nancy Pelosi!
Ms. Feinstein flew on a chartered private plane last week to return to Washington, accompanied by her dog, her longtime housekeeper and Nancy Corinne Prowda, the eldest daughter of Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the former House speaker who has been a longtime friend of Ms. Feinstein’s and has been practically living at her house during her recovery.
The senator’s relationship with Ms. Pelosi’s daughter goes back decades. The Pelosi family grew up across the street from Ms. Feinstein, people close to her said, and Ms. Prowda has been close with Ms. Feinstein since she was a child, looking up to her as a maternal figure.
But the senator’s condition and the political drama surrounding her fate has drawn so much scrutiny that even the presence of one of her closest friends during her convalescence has drawn speculation. Some have read Ms. Prowda’s involvement as a tacit endorsement by Ms. Pelosi of Ms. Feinstein’s decision to stay on, reasoning that it could give Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and Ms. Pelosi’s chosen candidate in the crowded race to replace Ms. Feinstein in 2024, a leg up. Mr. Newsom has committed to appointing a Black woman to the seat should it become vacant…
… Some current and former colleagues said the situation was alarming to watch and blamed Senate Republicans — who blocked Ms. Feinstein’s request for a temporary replacement on the Judiciary Committee — for upsetting images and sound bites of an infirm and confused senator trying to navigate the Capitol.
“Republicans are responsible for this nightmare scenario that’s unfolding,” said former Senator Barbara Boxer, who made history with Ms. Feinstein in 1992 as the first female senators elected from California. “I am sick at heart at that. I blame them for being mean to her and spinning it to blame the Democrats.”
1. She's already announced her retirement
2. She's been on judiciary since 1992, when she was first elected.
3. 129 federal judges confirmed since Joe Biden took over with a 50-50 majority for one half of it, faster than any President since Reagan.You're out of your depth. https://t.co/KE2fUH4uF0
— DiFi Goon Squad (@TonyMoonbeam) May 18, 2023
The Washington Post:
… Republicans blocked a proposal to allow Feinstein to be temporarily replaced on the Judiciary Committee during her months-long absence, putting more pressure on Feinstein to return while a few judges languished in the committee.
Democrats celebrated Feinstein’s return last week, given her vote is often crucial to push through the priorities of their narrow majority in the Senate. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), chair of the Judiciary Committee who has complained that her absence hamstrung his committee at a crucial time, expressed his “relief” on May 12 that she was back. Her return also takes pressure off Schumer, who now can count on Feinstein’s vote when needed for close confirmations — even if her health troubles appear to be lingering…
She’s resisted calls to step aside from some Democrats before, including when she ran for reelection at 85 years old in 2018. But she has also slowly relinquished some of her Senate roles since then. She stepped down as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee when she was on track to become the first woman to chair the powerful panel. And last year, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) became president pro tempore of the Senate, a position third in line to the presidency given to the most senior senator of the party in power, after Feinstein declined to take the title…
You mean the party that was openly saying they would hold a SCOTUS seat open for the entirety of Hillary Clinton’s term had she won in 2016? Those Republicans? https://t.co/WkxeTR5TRp
— Jason Karsh (@jkarsh) May 19, 2023
It’s truly silly to believe the highest (and only!) moral question of the Feinstein situation is whether individual staffers should resign or be able to hold jobs in the future, with no consideration for enabling the GOP to block all judicial appointments for the next 18 months.
— The Fig Economy (@figgityfigs) May 18, 2023
Rebels Dad
I love Clare McCaskill, but even Charlie Brown would’ve realized what Lucy’s doing by now.
Betty Cracker
How can Claire McCaskill be that goddamn naive? This situation has been handled badly by many of the people involved, but as usual, Repubs are the primary villains. It’s such a constant that it’s easy to lose sight of that and go straight to complaining about hubris, etc., displayed by Dems.
Xenos
One good thing still with Twitter is that someone passionate and knowledgeable can designate themself as the DiFi Goon Squad and start dishing it. Such a pleasure to see it.
eclare
@Betty Cracker:
Seriously! I saw her on MJ a few days ago talking about the debt ceiling, and Claire pulled no punches. Why she has blinders on for this issue, I have no idea. Like one of the tweets said, DiFi staying on and getting help as needed to cast votes is the best option right now. Actually it sounds like the only one if she is determined, like Betty II, to die in office.
piratedan
yes, DF is old, yes, we wish that this had unfolded differently but the truth of the matter is frankly that the other political party has established the criteria that will be played out by holding the Senate hostage to the rules and will do so unashamedly and without blame from much of the 4th estate who will gladly shape the narrative as the GOP wishes.
Considering this is the same party that fervently wished for Kennedy and Byrd to die rather than cast votes while they were terminally ill, this should not be unexpected
Dems and DF can cope with this however they wish and I’ll say nary a word, the other side will freely use our own best impulses against us and shed no tears. People are human, not all decisions work out as we hope or wish, so I’ll not throw any dirt on DF or the Dems, sure they have agency for their choices… yet its frequently overlooked that the other side has some agency too, they could allow her to retire and be replaced but all of those decades of collegiality mean nothing to them, Mitch would probably blink once or twice and blame the Dems for being so partisan.
Princess
She never, never should have run again in 2018. It was already evident she was sliding into dementia and couldn’t do her job. The senate is a governing body, not a retirement home. But if you ever said that out loud, you were sexiest and ageist. Anyway, I’m perfectly fine with them wheeling her in on life support to vote if it owns the fascists. Cry more, guys.
Narya
I am so tired of this being framed the way it is (as you all correctly note). After the last decade and the theft of two SC seats and the installation of a credibly accused sexual assaulter, the Rs can drink a cup of STFU and share that punchbowl w the press.
Benw
If she passes just go full Weekend at Feinie’s. Imagine Mitch shaking his flippers in rage when he realizes he’s been duped!
Gvg
Well I am darned glad to hear she declined to be Senate President pro tempore. That would be bad. I just wish we had the house….McCartney is not to be trusted and is an idiot.
JPL
As long as the good senator continues to receive medicat treatment, I see no reason for her to resign. We need her vote on the judicial committee. It would be a shame if Chuck Grassley became ill.
Cacti
Feinstein was stupid, arrogant, and selfish for seeking another term at her age.
Dem politicians who supported her, knowing that she was in cognitive decline, were her codependent enablers.
hells littlest angel
Feinstein may be impaired, but she’s still more mentally competent than Ron Johnson, Tommy Tuberville or Marsha Blackburn, to name but a few.
Hildebrand
I know that the Republicans have said that they wouldn’t allow a replacement on judiciary because she is ill (but remains in the Senate), but have they said that they will not allow a replacement if she retires?
Seems to me that those are two different situations.
Steeplejack
@JPL:
Mitch McConnell is no picture of blooming health himself. He was out of action for a significant stretch recently after a “minor” trip and fall.
Narya
@hells littlest angel: Chuck Grassley would be mad about being left off your list if his brain worked.
Chris Johnson
@Hildebrand: It’s not about what they say, or could ever say. Let’s assume they’re literal traitors seeking to wreck the United States and somehow are constrained by the literal letters of the laws and rules.
It looks like if she resigns, they can block all judges forever, but if she dies in office, something else happens and it does NOT mean they can block all judges and wreck the country.
I don’t quite get why they’re like this: it must be complicated. I’m the first to say lots of them are literally controlled by Russians in an undeclared war on the US, but it can’t be all of them.
But it looks like if DiFi dies in office, they don’t get to block all judges, wreck the country, and flee to Russia or whatever the rest of the plan is.
Looks like she’s fixing to die like a Klingon, and may she do so as comfortably as possible. She’s not wrong, and apparently this is consistent with her values. If she had to run for office again, this is her making good on her loyalty to the country, and it’s the most coherent thing she’s still able to do. Resigning and turning the country over to fascists would be far more of a sign of incompetence.
Tony Jay
It’s a shit situation for all concerned that would have been better avoided if a better outcome had been available. Was it? I don’t know, but that’s in the past.
As things stand, her stepping down would only hurt the Dems, which hurts the country, which helps the MAGOP, so she doesn’t step down. Her role now is to get wheeled in there and vote the right way, which given her history is what she’d do anyway.
Past that, what’s left to talk about?
satby
@Hildebrand: yes, they have.
There go two miscreants
@Hildebrand: Trusting any statement by Republicans would be gross political malpractice.
Kay
That fact needs to enter any of these discussions. The nature of a minor illness or accident changes with advanced age so every minor illness or accident becomes a health crisis. That’s why they need to step down at a reasonable retirement age, because not doing so creates these situations over and over again.
Also, I’m not persuaded by the “feminist” argument that says men do stupid, egostistical things so therefore women should too. None of them should do it.
Chris T.
@hells littlest angel:
Stop damning her with such faint praise! 😅
Kay
@Tony Jay:
We can’t keep saying this as this happens over and over. This is why people plan. So they aren’t always saying “well, this series of avoidable catastrophes occurred again but there’s no point in talking about it!”
Geminid
@Kay: I thought Maryland Senator Ben Cardin set a good example. He probably would have been reelected at age 80, but he retired instead.
Another Scott
@Hildebrand:
McConnell’s and other’s statements
Basically, all the monsters have to do is say, “you need 60 votes” and things stop. I don’t know if that applies if she dies in office, but given that they have special agreements when the Senate is (or is nearly) tied, and the special rules don’t have exceptions for death, and they are monsters, I assume by default that they would go back to 60 votes.
Remember that they were initially making noises about taking Sinema as a placeholder, but then said NOPE. I’m sure that they would take Tuberville as a replacement, but no Democrat who, after all, just wants to ram through Extremist Activist Judges who can’t get support from the American People™…
As things stand, we need her until January 2025.
Grr…,
Scott.
rikyrah
Good Morning, Everyone😊😊😊
Tony Jay
@Kay:
I don’t disagree. The Dems shouldn’t be in this situation. What I’m saying is that chewing over the backstory of this particular example doesn’t do anything to solve it, so making the best of a bad situation is all that’s worth talking about where the question is “What helps Dems get things through the Senate?”
Which is not the same thing as chewing over the backstory of this particular example, mixed with other examples from the past, and using them as an evidence that this kind of thing can’t be allowed to happen again. There’s no good faith argument that I can see against that.
rikyrah
Unless she dies in office, she must stay there for the judges.
Nothing is more important than the judges😠😠
rikyrah
@Tony Jay:
Nothing left to talk about. This is the situation.
Narya
@rikyrah: exactly. Several have been confirmed since she returned.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?
@Kay: Not sure what anyone could have done about this other than primary her and hope the younger candidate pulled out the W. I guess taking her off all the really important committees would have helped. She wouldn’t step down though so she basically chose to put herself in this situation. One could argue that she wasn’t competent to make that decision but I’m sure everyone close to her was telling her it was time to hang ’em up and she wouldn’t listen. Unless the were granted power of attorney they couldn’t make her do the right thing.
The Senate is half full of geezers hanging on well after their sell date. I swear it must be one of the easiest and most gratifying pass times (I won’t say it’s strenuous enough for them to call it an actual job) available anywhere.
Kay
@Tony Jay:
I think it does though. I think it makes it less likely it will be repeated. It’s the reason for “post mortems” and reverse engineering of failures and all performance reviews. People can get better. They can stop making the same error over and over again but not if they don’t even admit it happened.
They can’t stay in these jobs so long because if they do any minor health issue creates a crisis. Mitch McConnell probably isn’t lying. He probably did have a “minor fall”. It just takes him months to recover because of his advanced age.
MomSense
It’s a freaking miracle we’ve been able to MacGyver our democracy with a stick of chewing gum, a hairpin and an 89 year old dementia sufferer with shingles.
sdhays
I love Nancy, but I wouldn’t read much into this. Part of what has made Nancy as successful as she has been is personal loyalty. She supports people who have supported her. And for a situation like this, if Nancy thinks Feinstein should step down, she’ll tell her privately. She will never say it in public.
Now, it doesn’t seem like resigning is really an option, so the best we can hope for, I think, is for Feinstein to pull it out for the rest of her term and other octogenarian Senators take this as an example of what not to do and retire before they get into this situation.
Kay
@What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?:
We can stop rushing to the defense of people who should retire. It’s not helping.
I hope this is rumor and bullshit because if it’s not it’s monstrous:
I don’t care at all who Californians choose in that primary and Schiff seems like the favorite anyway but if any of this was done to ensure some kind of succession it’s appalling. She has dementia.
Tony Jay
@Kay:
That’s what my second paragraph was trying to say.
ETA – I checked. That’s exactly what my second paragraph was trying to say.
schrodingers_cat
@rikyrah: That’s her plan. She wants to die while doing stuff that is most important to her. She is like a soldier who wants to die fighting. All she gets is abuse and her staff is doxxed by leftist journo bros.
Another Scott
@Kay: Saying that oldsters with medical issues shouldn’t run for reelection is fine and good, but isn’t instructive for the current circumstances. We need Feinstein’s vote now. There’s no scenario where the GQP doesn’t use her absence to try to thwart approving Biden’s nominations and his push to make the Judiciary look like America.
She should stay and vote until January 2025.
All the rest is “Democrats are doing it wrong”, IMHO.
Cheers,
Scott.
Kay
@Another Scott:
Well get used to these crisis situations then, because they will keep happening. If you find yourself in a situation in an organization where a key person is hanging by a thread and the whole project rests on that weak link over and over and over again there is something wrong with what you’re doing. It isn’t the alignment of the stars or the tides – we’re in this mess, AGAIN, because we stubbornly refused to learn anything last time.
We could start by stopping telling these people they can stay in these positions WELL PAST when they can do the work. That would be a start. Just stop telling them that. That’ll help.
schrodingers_cat
BTW Biden was also called senile by the many of the same people who are calling Fienstein senile, during the 2020 primaries.
Kay
@Another Scott:
That’s fine but if you don’t want to ever improve or examine how we get into these messes then don’t say “nothing can be done”. Because it isn’t true. Nothing can be done once the situation is allowed to devolve into crisis, that’s true, but that’s a choice.
Geminid
@Kay: A lot of people latched on to the California Senate angle. The “reasoning” is that Pelosi wants Adam Schiff to win the nomination, but if Feinstein resigns Governor Newsome might choose Rep. Barbara Lee to take her place. Lee is one of the top three candidates in the primary race, and this would give her one advantage. Lee is running third now, and I think her being an incumbent would probably hurt Porter more, as they are both running in the “progressive” lane, while Schiff is the more “moderate” of the three.
The story of Pelosi’s daughter’s role sure brought out the knives. There are people who’ve never liked Pelosi and Feinstein, and oppose a Schiff nomination. So just hours after Politico broke the story, there were calls for Feinstein and Pelosi to resign.
Kay
@Geminid:
I understood the California primary situation. I don’t have any opinion on your assertion about “these are the people…” etc. It seems to me to be more of the perpetual fight between the Twitter Leftists and the Twitter Democrats, which doesn’t interest me. I don’t think it matters, real world.
How did we get into this mess? That’s what one asks after one finds themselves in the same mess over and over. Unless one doesn’t, in which case they’ll “find themselves” in the same mess again and again and again.
Kay
I think it is a mistake to continue to tell people who stay in these jobs too long that it is okay to do that because, after all, that’s what they want to do. “What they want” is not the only or even the most important consideration.
And using “feminism” to do that just discredits feminism, IMO.
sab
Everyone who has been procrastinating, please get your shingles shot.
catothedog
@Kay:
Why?
Republicans did the exact same thing with Strom Thurmond
Back in 2001, the 98 year-old Senator Strom Thurmond, plagued by health issues and a diminishing mental state, was wheeled onto the Senate floor to cast his votes— regardless of whether he fully understood what was going on or not.
Rethuglicans played this same game. None of this wailing and pearl-clutching happened then. Only when Democrats do it there is a problem? This is a redo of Garland’s SC nomination.
Especially considering that the Dems have no chance of winning the Senate in 24, nothing should stop Dems confirming judges.
Claire and the Dems who are playing this game are the utmost selfish and stupid b@stards. They are either useful idiots, or angling to get a slight incumbency advantage for their favorite Newsom nominated DiFi replacement Dem, when the CA-senate election rolls around in 24.
The time to debate this was when DiFi stood for election.
If a Republican on the judiciary committee kicks the bucket – knee-capping them from pulling the Garland game again – then the Dems can do a tit-for-tat, then Dems can ask DiFi to step down.
Dr. Jakyll and Miss Deride
As a California voter who felt conflicted in 2018 about returning Feinstein to office, I don’t remember hearing anyone say out loud in public at the time that she was already suffering cognitive decline. I also don’t remember seeing any clear evidence to suggest that that was true then. (The state Democratic Party’s support for her opponent was easily explained by ideological differences, since the party was run at the time by people well to her left.) On the other hand, if you want to make a blanket rule that 85-year-olds shouldn’t run for office, that would certainly simplify things. In short, I come down firmly on all sides of the issue.
schrodingers_cat
@sab: Good advice 👍
Geminid
@Kay: Like you say, it is the perpetual fight between Twitter Leftists and Twitter Democrats. I brought it up because the Lee vs. Schiff angle is in the forefront, and the Lee vs. Porter angle is not.
It’s true that my comment did not discuss the problem you concentrate on. I threw in my two cents worth at #33. But this is not the only aspect of the situation, and the others are still worth discussing. The post brought up the Senate angle, and you did also at #34.
Mai Naem mobile
@Kay: good luck trying to talk age with Mitch McConnell(81), Chuck Grassley(89),Chuck Schumer(72), Sherrod Brown(70), John Cornyn(70), Lindsey Graham(67), John Barrasso(70), Liz Warren(73), Dick Durbin(78), Joe Manchin(75), John Billy Bob Kennedy(71), Marsha Blackburn(70), Sheldon Whitehouse(67),Susan Collins(70), Ed Markey(76), Mittens(76), Bernie(81)…but wait there’s more – stroke survivors Fetterman(53), Ben Ray Lujan(50) and Chris Van Hollen(64) and then our favorites JD Vance(39), Krysten Sinema(46), Ted Cruz(50), Tom Cotton(46), Josh Fister Hawley(46), Mike Lee(51), and Marco Rubio(51).
Shalimar
@Kay: You’re right that we should examine where we went wrong, and try not to make the same mistakes again in the future. I don’t see how this one was avoidable though. Feinstein had the power and was owed so much by pretty much everyone in California Democratic politics that she got to make her own decision to run. And people with dementia are even more stubborn and insistent that they are fine than others are. This was the choice she was always going to make, and it is unlikely anyone had the influence to change her mind.
Let’s hope another dementia-decline situation doesn’t come up again anytime soon because the results are likely to be the same. You don’t get to be a politician in your late 70s and 80s without building up the powerbase to do whatever you want.
O. Felix Culpa
@Kay:
“Some have read” is doing the usual heavy lifting in that article.
Shalimar
@Kay: That story is irrelevant even if it’s true. Feinstein has to stay until 2025 for the Judiciary Committee. Who her chosen successor is does not matter. She can endorse Schiff in the primary if she wants, but otherwise who cares who her preference is?
Frankensteinbeck
She’s retiring at the end of her term. Right now she’s voting Dem when we need her. This is what she wants, so we’re not morally exploiting her. Everything important is covered as far as I’m concerned.
As for preventing this in the future, we can’t. If we urge someone like Feinstein or RBG to retire while it’s convenient to replace them, and they refuse, we can do jack shit about it. RBG had a lifetime appointment and Feinstein was able to win her elections. The power to make the decision was theirs, and they made it.
Jinchi
I absolutely disagree. We’re talking about this story, because it’s happening right now. Everyone seems to be assuming that the issue is irrelevant because she’s back in DC casting votes. And while I wish her good health, it seems extremely doubtful that she’ll be able to keep this up until January 2025.
You’re all insisting that the only out for Democrats in that circumstance is if she dies. I think it’s definitely worth arguing the point and making sure that Democrats have developed a strategy to make sure a replacement is able to be seated if necessary. And I don’t think this should be an issue discussed in quiet rooms behind closed doors.
MomSense
@Geminid:
I think the moderate progressive analysis of the candidates is really lazy. It doesn’t really apply to the Senate in terms of how that legislative body operates. Here’s why I think the next Senator from CA should be Schiff. He is a team player and in the Senate that is even more important than in the House. Porter is smart, but she doesn’t work well with others and has pissed off so many people including Maxine – which is a fucking stupid thing to do. The Senate is all relationship based.
Then there are the electoral considerations. Schiff represents a district that will absolutely vote for the Democrat. The loss of the advantage that an incumbent has in a re-election bid won’t matter in that district.
Porter needs to hold her district in 2024. Giving up that incumbency advantage is not smart.
Geminid
@Jinchi: There is not much strategy involved with Feinstein’s death or retirement. Governor Newsome will appoint an interim Senator, and in 2024 California voters will choose someone to fill the seat until January, 2031.
Frankensteinbeck
@Jinchi:
A worthy topic of discussion that nobody seems to be having. Maybe because, like me, they don’t see an out. If anyone does have any ideas, I sincerely would love to hear them, and that is not snide or sarcastic.
MomSense
@Mai Naem mobile:
That list reminds me of how we lost our generation to Ronald Reagan and Alex P. Keaton. Also reminds me of what a nightmare high school was.
Geminid
@MomSense: Personally, I don’t think the moderate/progressive rivalry matters much either, and that’s one reason I put “moderate” and “progressive” in quotation marks. Rightly or wrongly though, I think it will be a factor in the various public debates about the California Senate race, and that is making the Feinstein/Pelosi story a matter of controversy.
Jinchi
The argument people are making is that if Feinstein dies, Democrats can replace her on the judiciary committee, but if she resigns, they can’t. The strategy Democrats need to be working on is how to deal with the problem if it becomes impossible for her to return to work.
Delk
Cocainebeing a senator is a helluva drug.Geminid
@MomSense: I think it’s more like Porter “needed” to stay and run for reelection to the House. Like Feinstein’s decision to run again in 2018, that horse is out of the barn.
The new district is typically rated “D+3” and Porter hit that mark last November. Last year, Democrats underperformed by a few points in other Southern California House races, so it could be that Porter’s advantage as both an incumbent and a party “star” made the difference.
It looks like district Democrats have at least two good candidates in former Rep. Rouda and State Senator Min. Porter’s Republican challenger of last year has announced, so it’s likely that only one Democrat will advance from the jungle primary.
Another Scott
Relevant Q&A from the LATimes (from April 30):
Oh, Lindsey said something. They’ll follow precedent. That seals it. (groucho-roll-eyes.gif)
Cheers,
Scott.
UncleEbeneezer
You can’t make someone do something they don’t want to do. You can’t prevent someone from running for office. You can’t prevent people from voting for them. Pretending this is a situation that only effects Dems and is example ∞+1 of how Democrats always fail us, is extra-rich considering the last POTUS and current front-runner for 2024 is a guy that the GOP was powerless to stop no matter how badly party leaders and their mainstream voters wished they could. This is on: 1.) stubborn people like DiFi (who, hello, make up 100% of the Senate because they all have ginormous egos and think they are irreplaceable/infallible) and 2.) voters. Voters
sometimesoften make shitty decisions. Welcome to politics. Bashing the Democratic Party over this or pretending there is One Weird Trick that will prevent situations like this in the future, if only Dems cared/tried harder, is nonsense.lowtechcyclist
@schrodingers_cat:
Do you have a point here, other than a false equivalence?
@schrodingers_cat:
And for now we’ve got no good option but to let her do exactly that – which isn’t a good option either, just the best of the bad ones.
But I’m with Kay: our party leadership should have pushed her towards the door six years ago, and should damn well be proactive the next time a situation like this is on the horizon.
Nelle
This has me thinking about Grassley. It was often mentioned that he might win in ’22, then resign so his grandson (speaker of the Iowa House) could be appointed. Of course, that ignores our guv, on her last term, who has her own ambitions, who might want to appoint herself. Now I wonder what committees he is on….
Betty Cracker
@Jinchi: I think we’re not having that conversation because we already know what will happen if she can’t return to work — the same thing that happened between Feb. and May. Repubs held up nominations and would prevent Biden from filling a SCOTUS seat should one open up.
Geminid
@Jinchi: Yes, now I see, you were talking about her Committee seat. I do not think Feistein will finish out her term, so whatever strategy Democrats are working on had better be a good one. One element of it might be seen now in the shaming of Republicans for refusing to allow Feinstein to retire without changing the Democrats’ one vote Committee majority.
The overall strategy still might not work, though, because McConnell and company are both ruthless and shameless. In that case, Democrats will be in the same boat they were in the last Congress.
randy khan
@lowtechcyclist:
I’m curious how you and Kay think that would have worked. I’m not aware of any way that party leadership (in either party) can prevent an incumbent from choosing to run for reelection to the Senate. And if she’s like most Senators, she wouldn’t be inclined to listen to advice from her colleagues on that point. Maybe her family or close non-political friends could do it, but that’s probably it.
I’m not saying it was good, but this is just a situation where there aren’t many levers to pull.
lowtechcyclist
@UncleEbeneezer:
The party can threaten to throw its weight, and its fundraising capacity, behind a primary challenger. And then do that if the threat alone doesn’t suffice.
Maybe that still wouldn’t have worked in this case. But it’s still something the party can do. It’s not helpless in a situation like this.
Tony Jay
@Jinchi:
And, again, it’s like I’m speaking in tongues, because we seem to be saying the same thing.
Means this is the situation right now. Arguing over who is to blame or who said what and whether 2+2 can be said to equal 4 if someone from a different ideological grouping said it first does nothing, zero, nada x nada to advance any of the Dem’s priorities right now. You’d agree with that, right? It’s circular firing squad bollox and only helps people whose main priority is factional strife rather than party unity.
Isn’t this exactly what you’re saying when you’re talking about making plans for what to do if Feinstein can’t continue being a wheeled in vote or dies on the job? I certainly think it is, which is why I’m pretty much in agreement with the bulk of your comment.
SW
I cared for my Mom during the last six years of her life. She passed in December. A year previous she contracted shingles. It was horrible. She was a lower leg amputee and the shingles attacked her stump. She was never the same. I really don’t understand why doctors don’t insist that patients over 80 get the vaccine. Most thin caucasian women who get shingles after 80 never really recover. Ms Feinstein really needs to retire and focus on her health.
O. Felix Culpa
@lowtechcyclist:
And how, exactly, could they have forced her out? The party has NO power to stop people from running, if they meet the technical qualifications, e.g., enough petition signatures to get on the ballot.
geg6
@Frankensteinbeck:
100% agree.
Another Scott
@O. Felix Culpa: Plus, incumbency is a huge advantage. (c.f. Joe Liberman in 2006). Picture the situation if the party says “you need to go” and the candidate runs anyway and wins.
The ads write themselves.
“Even the Democratic Party didn’t want them to run. Why should you vote for them??!”
Cheers,
Scott.
O. Felix Culpa
@lowtechcyclist:
How to say you’ve never worked in party politics without saying you’ve never worked in party politics. Apart from exerting moral suasion–and we know how effective that can be (not)–it is totally helpless in a situation like this. By rule, the state party must stay neutral in contested primaries. And long-term pols like Feinstein have ginormous war chests of their own. They don’t need the relatively piddling sums a state party can provide.
So let’s stop the Dem blame game, please. DiFi made her decision to run and California voters elected her. Bad choices all around, but here we are. Work for a better system and better candidates to achieve better outcomes in the future.
Geminid
@lowtechcyclist: I think the California party apparatus did endorse Senator Feinstein’s challenger in 2018. But a party apparatus has little fundraising capability of its own.
Party chairmen don’t have that much clout on substantive issues or candidates either, and overall I think that’s a good thing. I know that when in 2020 the Virginia chairman told Democrats they should vote against the constitutional amendment to create in independent Redistricting Commission, I thought that while he might earn his pay keeping the party’s operations running smoothly, I did not need his guidance to decide about the issue. Maybe some Democrats voted against on his say-so, but the amendment still passed by nearly 2 to 1.
JML
@O. Felix Culpa: I;m quite certain that party leadership has tried to ease her into retirement behind the scenes, prior to this session. But they’re not going to do it in public, especially with someone like DiFi who a) deserves better than to be treated like a commodity, and b) isn’t going to be moved by public pressure, especially when the pile on starts coming from people that don’t like her in the first place. They’re not stupid, they know who she is and how stubborn she is. There’s just not a ton they can do if she tells them to get stuffed.
I don’t like anything about this situation, but the GOP makes it far worse than it has to be (as they do with all things). And let’s not forget a lot of the people on the left who keep screaming about this have ulterior motives that have nothing to do with preserving DiFi’s health or dignity, the institution of the Senate, or even continuing to move business forward.
Mom’s husband has dementia, and mom’s health has been a little shaky. My sister wants him in memory care and mom out of the big old house like yesterday, and I keep having to explain to her that we can’t MAKE her do it and demanding she change things only puts her back up more.
geg6
@UncleEbeneezer:
Also 100% agree.
O. Felix Culpa
@JML: Exactly. I wouldn’t be surprised if party leadership tried behind the scenes to talk her out of running (hence my reference to moral suasion), but they have no power to stop anyone who is determined to do so. None. At. All. So let’s please stop with the “Democratic Party shoulda/woulda/coulda.” [Not directed at you.]
ETA. My sympathies for the challenging elder situation you’re facing. Went through something similar with my mom, but were limited in our options by law since she wasn’t deemed a threat to herself or others. It’s hard.
kalakal
Somewhat ghoulish but are there any GQP members of the Judiciary Committee who due to age/ medical conditions be considered a big nope for life insurance? That would, in a grim way ‘balance’ the situation.
Right the best solution is for her to cling on and confirm judges, it smacks of cruelty to me, but it is what she wants.
For the future Senate rules need to be changed to stop this nonsense.
As de Gaulle said “The grave yards are full of indispensable men”
Anyway
Was there an opportunity at the start of last congress (after the 3022 midterms) for Schumer and DiFi to make the change? Have her “retire” from the Judiciary committee allowing a D replacement. She stays in the senate just not on the Judiciary committee.
Add me to those thoroughly uninterested in the endless bickering between Twitter progressives/ leftists/Ds …
Omnes Omnibus
Let’s say Democratic leadership* thought Feinstein was losing it back in 2018, what could they have done? What could they have done? Cut Feinstein off financially? I am pretty sure that she was able to raise money on her own and lots of it. Backed a challenger? The particular Dem who came through the jungle primary in 2018 was so problematic that Feinstein was easily reelected. Also, the DSCC supports Democratic incumbents; that’s what it does. Getting it to change that is one of the more unlikely to succeed challenges out there.
A movement toward younger leadership is a good Idea and it is underway, but it won’t happen overnight.
*Ignoring the fact that DiFi was a part of the Democratic leadership back then.
O. Felix Culpa
@Geminid:
Correct.
Another Scott
@Anyway: She was Ranking Member and scheduled to be Chair of the Judiciary committee. Getting her to give up the Chair was a big ask already.
Feinstein.Senate.gov:
People work their whole careers to try to get to be Chair.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Geminid
@Kay: Also, if I’d said “these are the people” etc., I really would have been centering the “Twitter Left” vs. Twitter Democrat” fight that you then brought up.
But I said “there are people who have never liked Feinstein and Pelosi,” which I thought was both objective and relevant context.
Brachiator
If Feinstein cannot function effectively, this is a parody of democracy.
Couldn’t Newsom name a replacement and let the Democrats maintain their numbers?
O. Felix Culpa
@Brachiator: No.
ETA: That is to say, I believe the governor can replace her IF she dies or steps down during her term of office, but he cannot install the hypothetical replacement on the Judiciary Committee, which is what this whole fooferaw is about.
Geminid
@O. Felix Culpa: The situation in the Nevada state party leadership from 2021 until this Spring is a good example of why this can be a good thing. Even with limited power, those idiots cost Governor Sisolak his reelection, and almost cost Senator Cortez-Masto hers.
Aside from this example, I think that much more often than not, it’s to the party’s advantage to let voters pick the candidates and to let the candidates craft the policy platforms they run on.
Omnes Omnibus
@Brachiator: The replacement would be seated as a senator, yes. Committee assignments are the issue, especially Judiciary.
Shalimar
@Jinchi: If Feinstein resigns or dies and Republicans won’t allow a replacement on the Judiciary Committee, Schumer should shut the entire Senate down until enough Republicans relent. No useful legislation is passing the House anyway. If there are no confirmations, why would the Senate need to be in session at all?
Another Scott
@kalakal:
Current members:
Here’s hoping that Colin Allred kicks Cancun Ted to the curb. And that we flip a few more.
Cheers,
Scott.
O. Felix Culpa
@Geminid: Good example. State and county parties often have platforms that state their positions on various issues, but there is no enforcement mechanism to make candidates or elected officials to adhere to them.
Paul in KY
@Princess: I blame her family for 2018. I assume she has one. They should have laid down the law and explicitly told her the bad news, etc. etc.
The only caveat on that is that it’s probably harder to do that to a family member who’s also a US senator.
Paul in KY
@Chris Johnson: Anyone (just about) with (D) after their name was going to win the senate race in Cali.
Paul in KY
@Tony Jay: How about that City Team, Tony! 3 more wins and we have the Treble!
By the way, If you win 2, that’s called the ‘Beble’ and if you get all 4, its the ‘Queble’. :-)
Cacti
The fact that the commenters here skew senior citizen also explains a lot of the reflexive defensiveness towards the mentally impaired, geriatric Senator.
No, she was not irreplaceable. Yes, the national party could have backed someone else.
Paul in KY
@Kay: Agree 100%. The continuation of Party Success is what matters most. Not which particular party member is doing the good stuff.
Brachiator
@O. Felix Culpa:
Appreciate the clarification. Thanks
Paul in KY
@Dr. Jakyll and Miss Deride: She should have the Big Girl Panties to woman up and see it was time for her to retire. Justice Ginsburg too, IMO.
That’s just hindsight now. We are where we are and she needs to stay in the committee and vote the votes her aides tell he to vote.
Paul in KY
@Shalimar: This is where you need the beloved family member to speak truth to power.
Miss Bianca
@Tony Jay:
Nothing, so far as I’m concerned. The rest is silence.
But, this is Balloon Juice, after all, my dear TJ. So of course, we’ll all have a *lot* to say on this and every other subject. :)
Paul in KY
@Delk: It sure is!
Miss Bianca
@Dr. Jakyll and Miss Deride:
I don’t normally do the “Nominated!” call for rotating tags, but I will make an exception for this gem.
Paul in KY
@Another Scott: Agree, Scott, but you have to be sage enough to deal with reality and if she had been more realistic back in 2018, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
Nobody is promised anything in this life…except death.
Cacti
What’s left to talk about is shit canning the strategy of “Let’s just plan on _______________ living forever” for future races.
Paul in KY
@Cacti: Agreed.
O. Felix Culpa
@Cacti: Yes, she was replaceable. No, the national party had no power to stop her from running.
Cacti
@O. Felix Culpa: They also had no interest in doing so, because she was their friend.
Omnes Omnibus
@O. Felix Culpa:
Ah, they just didn’t try hard enough. Or something.
Cacti
@Omnes Omnibus: What a surprise. The pompous geezer has checked in to tut tut about the majesty of respecting the blah blah bullshit bullshit.
Are you ever right about anything?
Omnes Omnibus
@Cacti: I don’t know. Are you ever not an asshole about everything?
Cacti
@Omnes Omnibus: Tell us again how Merrick Garland has Trump right where he wants him, we just need to wait another decade for him to get everything into place.
Another Scott
@Paul in KY: I’m not a fan of people in their 9th decade holding important elected office, either, if there are better alternatives. It’s up to the voters, though, to decide – I’m not a fan of maximum age restrictions on elected office (appointed judges are a different story, IMHO).
Counterfactuals are never easy.
If she had announced that she wasn’t running in 2018, who would have been in the primary race besides De Leon (who was exposed to be a bit of a monster himself)? A knock-down drag-out fight between big names (as may happen this cycle) can give an opening for someone unexpected and maybe having their own baggage.
There’s no guarantee that whoever won would have been on Judiciary either (it’s unusual for a state to have 2 members on that committee, isn’t it?). Peter Welch (D-VT) is 76. What if he has some sort of medical issue??
We are where we are. Maybe voters will consider these issues in future elections, maybe they won’t (having an oldster crisis is much less frequent than having a debt-ceiling or government shutdown crisis, and that seemingly hasn’t affected voters too much…).
Cheers,
Scott.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cacti: So, that would be a hard no as the answer to my question? Cool.
Cacti
@Omnes Omnibus: Counselor, you didn’t actually answer my question about you ever being right about anything. You switched to tone policing. When you can’t pound the facts, pound the table, no? lol
Tony Jay
@Paul in KY:
That demolition of Real Madrid was hilarious. Given how shit United are against anyone who attacks them, that’s the FA Cup safely in the bag too. Can Inter grind out a 0-0 in Istanbul and win on pens? I haz me doots.
Still, it just means more trophies to get reassigned to the runners-up once the Premier League investigation gets around to using the Everton precedent to strip you of everything. :-)
I DO NOT TAKE PLEASURE* IN THIS PROSPECT!
* Much**
**because that means United would get more Premier trophies than us!
Tony Jay
@Cacti:
I covered that in one of my covering posts.
Full service, that’s me.
Cacti
Why?
With age comes wisdom…to a certain point. Past that point, with age comes physical and cognitive decline.
80 isn’t the new 40.
Anyway
@Another Scott:
Making tough decisions and asks comes with the territory of majority leader..
TBH I don’t see the Senate as this great institution or individual senators as amazing impressive people. For the most part they seem to be pretty mediocre people who were at the right place at the right time and then ride out the incumbency. They are easily replaceable. (I understand the issue here we can’t lose her on Judiciary) just pointing out that most senators are nothing special.
Soprano2
@Kay: My friend’s mother ended up in memory care rather than in her own home after being in the hospital for a bout of the flu. Her mother is 92, so yeah even a minor illness at that age can have major effects, let alone a major illness like flu.
Another Scott
@Cacti: Because they’re arbitrary and people are different with huge health and longevity variability. And because seniority means a lot. And because institutional knowledge is important.
Robert Byrd was 92 when he died in June 2010.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Paul in KY
@Another Scott: Good points, but somebody (presumably in better health) would have had her spot on the judiciary. My thought is that if you are good enough to be elected a Democratic US senator, then you are good enough to be on Judiciary (Simenenea excepted).
Cacti
This.
Paul in KY
@Tony Jay: I’m optimistic that we’ll bribe enough people to ensure that ‘Everton Precedent’ does not happen in the end.
We just need to be super focused on one match at a time & not be thinking at all of anything in the bag yet. Cause at the hour and minute I’m typing this: We ain’t won shit.
Cacti
They really aren’t as different as you suggest.
And all of the points you make could also be made for minimum age requirements for adults to hold office.
75. Then done.
Another Scott
@Cacti: Why not 74? Or 76? Or 90-1/4?
You picking an arbitrary number isn’t persuasive.
Plus, there’s the little issue of the Constitution listing the requirements and maximum age isn’t one of them.
Cheers,
Scott.
Cacti
@Another Scott: We already have arbitrary age numbers for all sorts of things.
Or does the responsibility fairy come visit every 17 year old on the eve of their 18th birthday and sprinkle adult dust on them?
ETA: And the age numbers listed in the Constitution are just arbitrary ones chosen by people in 1787.
Azhrie139
@Princess: Co-sign your message at #6. How quickly the so called moderates wipe away the history to absolve our party’s leadership of their horrible behavior that won’t likely materially impact most of their rich assess.
trollhattan
Given this:
Why is it a problem if DiFi leaves today? Her replacement can be there in a week.
H.E.Wolf
@Cacti:
I can think of a reason why maximum-age requirements could be inequitable.
In our current societal systems, it is often harder to advance in a given career for people who are not some combination of white/straight/male.
Therefore, a maximum-age requirement could disproportionately shorten the careers of many well-qualified people.
Now, if someone wanted to propose a mandatory retirement age of 60 for straight white men, and 75 for everyone else, I’d be willing to consider that suggestion. :)
(… I wouldn’t be willing to agree to it, but that’s another matter.)
Cacti
@H.E.Wolf: And does your age start with a 5, a 6, or 7?
apocalipstick
@UncleEbeneezer: Thank you. A lot of this is pure Green Lanternism.
VFX Lurker
@Paul in KY:
DiFi’s general election opponent in 2018 had a (D) after his name. Before he entered that 2018 race, he oversaw a California Senate rife with sexual harassment as California Senate Leader. He also recently made the news for a city council scandal where audio leaked of him scheming to reduce the political power of Black voters.
Californians dodged a real bullet in 2018.
apocalipstick
@lowtechcyclist: Tony Jay is from Britain (I believe), where party leaders have much, much more power than they do in the US of A. Our federalist system awards actual power to state and local entities in ways that do not exist in a parliamentary system. The ‘people (which people?) should have discouraged Feinstein’ argument grants modern parties much more authority than they possess.
Another Scott
@Cacti: There’s a big difference, as you know, between having to be of a certain age to sign contracts, or drive an automobile, or have sexual relations, or join the military, or …, and the state saying “you may not vote for this person to represent you in government because they are older than some arbitrary number.”
(One establishes a benefit, one takes a right away.)
Cheers,
Scott.
Cacti
Yes, thank goodness for the dementia patient now on death watch.
Cacti
@Another Scott: The state literally already says “You may not vote for someone because they are younger than some arbitrary number”.
apocalipstick
@Anyway: Most committee assignments run on seniority. A replacment for Feinstein would not automatically be slated for Judicial. Put another way, if Feinstein resigned, someone like Sinema (who would have greater seniority than the new Senator from CA) might decide that she wanted Judiciary. That’s one of the real advantages of incumbency: vote in a new guy/gal, you go to the bottom of the seniority list.
Cacti
@apocalipstick: Hooray for gerontocracy!
Another Scott
@Cacti: Yes, and once they pass that number one can vote for them. The right doesn’t vanish when they cross some arbitrary higher number threshold.
“I hope I die before I get old” was not an actual reference to a calendar number.
Cheers,
Scott.
schrodingers_cat
@lowtechcyclist:It was an example of the podcast progressives and their assorted allies who write for rags like Jacobin etc. making bad faith ageist arguments. They are always trying to kneecap elected Democrats have little to say about obstructionist Rs.
apocalipstick
@Brachiator: Numbers in the Senate, yes, but not on Judiciary.
And electing bad candidates is not a parody of representative democracy, it’s one of the commonplace occurrences.
Cacti
@Another Scott: I understand this is a sensitive topic for you Modern Maturity readers at BJ.
apocalipstick
@Another Scott:
“Here’s hoping that Colin Allred kicks Cancun Ted to the curb.”
Good luck with that. I think they’ll keep sending Cruz to the Senate just so they don’t have to put up with him in Texas.
apocalipstick
@Paul in KY: When was the last time you laid down the law to a family member? How did it go?
My mother-in-law was very cognizant of the fact that she needed to give up the car keys and quit driving. She was quite pleasant. My father, OTOH, has turned this into a scorched-earth campaign.
Cacti
Lately I find “ageist” to be the preferred sword of geriatric Boomers who don’t want to let go of anything.
apocalipstick
@Paul in KY:
” Good points, but somebody (presumably in better health) would have had her spot on the judiciary.”
Huge assumption, there.
apocalipstick
@Cacti:
” And the age numbers listed in the Constitution are just arbitrary ones chosen by people in 1787.”
And changing them requires an amendment to the Constitution, not an executive order or law.
apocalipstick
@trollhattan:
Because her replacement would be at the bottom of the seniority chart and would not be guaranteed a seat on the Judicial Committee.
Anyway
@apocalipstick:
She was Ranking Member and scheduled to be Chair of the Judiciary committee. Getting her to give up the Cair was a big ask already
Quinerly
Trying to find a thread to leave this piece. Worth the read.
https://apnews.com/article/transgender-health-model-legislation-5cc4a7cb4ab69150f670d06fd0f361ab
Anyway
@apocalipstick
Geeze, this statement has been made multiple times –on this very thread. I specifically mentioned the START of the congress when committee assignments are made. Not now when there’s no guarantee of a D replacement.
Ruckus
I agree that the situation is not good. I agree that Feinstein should not of run in 2018. I am a CA resident and she is one of my senators and I’m not happy with the situation.
But.
And it is a huge but. That is not the situation that we have in front of us. The situation we have is that our politics is sometimes very screwed up, and this is one of those times. She ran and no one worth voting for more than her, who could have been a known entity ran against her – because that’s not the way it’s done. Which is a rather shitty way to run a national government but that’s the way it is. (I don’t know if it’s fixable, if the country would allow a fix if someone could come up with one, like say a maximum age limit or a maximum time in office) but we need to fix somethings that may have worked 200 yrs ago but really don’t any more. This is a different world today than it was 200 yrs ago and things work differently. The senate was always the rich way of controlling the government and it still is. And it often affects the ability to have a reasonable government and population. The world has changed – a lot in the last 200 yrs and our governing style has not kept up. The basic idea is great, the details seem to be lacking.
Tony Jay
@Paul in KY:
You ‘haven’t won shit yet’ in exactly the same sense that I ‘haven’t had a shit yet’.
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it’s going to happen. 👍
db11
@Another Scott:
No more arbitrary than mandatory retirement age for regular workers. (65 here, 62 in France until Macron’s recent fuckery).
I think 75 is the right age limit for holding federal office, though 80 — or even 85 — would have eliminated the most egregious examples of Senators holding on too long. (Feinstein, Grassley, Thurmond etc.)
10 years past mandatory retirement age is plenty to capture the wisdom and institutional knowledge of older senators. Besides, the issue in the Senate is not that we lack elders, but rather that there is a sclerotic log-jam of olds clogging up the place.
What it needs now (and politics in general) is an influx of younger people with fresh ideas and the energy (not to mention skin in the game) to tackle the myriad of potentially existential threats arrayed in front of us.
Jay C
@Shalimar:
This is a good point, and one which I have wondered about in various online discussions: why are Committee assignments (in essence) subject to veto by the Opposition Party? If the Judiciary Committee is composed of 11 Democrats and 10 Republicans, whose business – outside of each Party’s caucus – is it exactly who occupies those seats?
db11
Also, there’s nothing to be done about Feinstein herself now, other than cross our fingers and hope that she holds out longer than it currently looks like she will.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discuss how to prevent a similar situation from repeating itself, with Feinstein simply as the most recent example in a long line of of what not to do.
Another Scott
@db11: Eh? Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967:
Cheers,
Scott.
WaterGirl
@Hildebrand:
I wouldn’t trust whatever answer they gave; their word means nothing.
WaterGirl
@Steeplejack:
So perhaps even if something happens to McConnell, there can be no election of a new minority leader without 60 votes, so they have to go leaderless until Jan 2025. No more bringing a knife to a fight with a nuclear bomb.
edit: as far as I’m concerned, when the future of democracy is at stake, all gloves are off. That’s the high road until we are back to a relatively stable democracy.
Citizen Alan
@Kay: Something else I haven’t seen discussed is the fact that california voters have agency. The majority of people who voted for Fienstein in 2018 were well aware of her age and decline. But they were also well aware of the benefits her seniority brought to the state of california. It is the same cynical calculation that kept Thurmond, Thad Cochran. John Stennis, Jamie Whitten, and God knows how many others in congress long past the point where they were not competent to serve. But if they can still press the yes button when their aides tell them to, that’s all that matters to a sizeable percentage of voters.
db11
@Another Scott: “tenured workers” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Would be curious to hear from any (labor) lawyers who could shed light on what that actually covers…
i.e. can corporations force blue-collar workers to retire at 65? How about white-collar workers? Senior managers?
Are you implying that there are no workers that are subject to mandatory retirement?
Another Scott
@db11: The law says that most workers can’t be forced to retire due to age.
Being qualified for retirement doesn’t mean retirement is mandatory.
E.g. 77 years of federal service
Cheers,
Scott.
Ruckus
@H.E.Wolf:
Yes they would be inequitable, no question. Some are more aware at 75 or 80 than others at any age. But we all get old or die trying. And as an old, not as old as Feinstein, who lives in a seniors apt complex and sees a lot of older individuals I can honestly say there should be a maximum age for congress. I’m not sure what that age is, because we all age different. Most of the people here think I’m a lot younger than I am because I don’t look anywhere near my age. And most of them know age because some here are 20+ yrs older than me. But, and it is a big, firm, round but, we all slow down as we age, in every way possible. Now we may still be considered fine and a lot younger than our years, but that can be a falsehood. And often is. I have a neighbor who is 96 and still rides around on her electric scooter. But she now needs a person behind her to guide her because she can’t see well enough. But she won’t stop till her body stops working at all. I also went through a 2 yr period not all that many years ago when 14 people I know passed away. Only one was older and only by a year. He was the first of the 14. None were from accidents, all were just their time. We all die, and unless we pull the plug, none of us knows when that will be.
But. While this is about what an individual is capable of, people in congress affect all of our lives, good or bad. We have a right to insure that we get the representation we want by voting. But like most everything else in humanity, that can be good or bad, because humans. And because government can be a life or death situation for a lot/all of us, we in this country actually get to choose. And often the choice is bad – or worse. That was the last senate election in CA. It was the current senator or someone totally unqualified to be anything above dog poop scooper upper. Because she was the long time senator and no one reasonable would run against her. She shouldn’t have had the choice to run. She should have aged out. And yet Joe Biden, who isn’t much younger is president and a damn good one. Age is a funny thing, some are good at 80 or 90 and some don’t even make it to 70.
So I ask, what do we do? How do we set a reasonable age limit? 65? 80? 85? 90?
WaterGirl
@MomSense: Totally agree with everything you wrote.
@Geminid: D+3 is not at all a sure thing, even in CA.
db11
Did my own research :)
So I wasn’t aware that ‘mandatory’ retirement had been largely retired by law, since in practice the average retirement age hasn’t budged a lot in the past 50 years (though it has bumped up slightly).
I find it interesting that the two allowed exceptions are where the requirements of the job — either physical or cognitive — legally acknowledge the impact of aging on these (critical) job-defined functions.
Good to know that there are no cognitive requirements for being a senator.
WaterGirl
@Frankensteinbeck: Agree on all points.
db11
@Another Scott: Happy to be corrected on that point – I learned something today.
But if you substitute “average retirement age” for “mandatory retirement age” it really doesn’t change the gist of my earlier post: that the problem isn’t a lack of older senators — and the associated loss of institutional memory / aggregated wisdom — but rather a surfeit of them.
And I think a good team of lawyers could make cogent arguments for establishing “bona fide occupational qualifications” — especially cognitive / executive function ones — for senators (and judges).
I do (newly) appreciate that the legal hurdles for doing so are higher than I might have thought — though not necessarily insurmountable — so thanks for that!
Omnes Omnibus
@db11: If you set a mandatory retirement age for elected officials in order to avoid the Feinstein situation, you could eliminate people like Pelosi and Biden. Is this a tradeoff that you want to make? Does this situation cause problems often enough that we need to legislate to prevent it?
Ruckus
@WaterGirl:
edit: as far as I’m concerned, when the future of democracy is at stake, all gloves are off. That’s the high road until we are back to a relatively stable democracy.
Those last 3 words. Can you define that? Because I’d bet that there are dozens of ways to do that. Add in that many in this country don’t want a stable democracy because it limits them in some way. Usually financial but still, it isn’t a democracy if it overly restricts some things. And by the way I agree with your take.
My concern is that the big change is that we don’t have a wealthy class, we have a massively wealthy class – billionaires. Lots of billions billionaires. They can spend many lifetime incomes without a moments hesitation to influence what they want – more billions. They have bought and continue to buy support for their desires to have more billions – that they get drop by big drop from all of us.
How do we fix/control this?
Paul in KY
@apocalipstick: My mother actually decided not to drive anymore. My father we had to disable the truck & then sell it & take away his license. He did peacefully give up the license.
I agree it can be very hard to do, given the personality of the family member you are counseling.
Paul in KY
@apocalipstick: Somebody would have. Given our majority. As long as it is not Simenenenea. I could even have Manchin in there and he’d vote for Pres. Biden’s picks.
Paul in KY
@Tony Jay: Pretty close to that shit right now!
Paul in KY
@Paul in KY: We have the Oneble!!! On to the Beble!
Kent
They are only subject to veto because the Dems give them that power. Essentially the way it works is that when each Congress is organized at the beginning of the term they vote for committees etc. on a party line vote or 51 vote majority to organize the place, and then revert back to the 60 vote filibuster for the remainder of the term except for those specific things that they choose not to such as judges, executive branch nominees, reconciliation, etc. Apparently committee assignments is not one of those carve-outs.
In other words, there is no rule or law, just Senate custom. But it would take 51 votes to change that so Manchin and Sinema. Or at least one of them
Honest to God, this one really isn’t on the GOP. It is their fucking job to oppose. This one is on the Democrats if they can’t appoint someone they want due to their own self-imposed rules and “customs”. You don’t for a second imagine that the GOP would let its judicial nominations languish if the shoe were on the other foot? Of course, not, they’d ram through a committee replacement on a party-line vote. Or else just bypass the committee alltogether and just vote for all the judges on the floor of the Senate.
db11
@Omnes Omnibus: That’s a good question — and after doing a little more research into the ADEA and the requirements for establishing a BFOQ (found here: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/adea-guide-for-age-discrimination-law) — I think that 80 would be a more defensible limit.
But, to answer your question, yes I would be OK with that. For while I think Joe has been a great president in troubled times — and much better than I anticipated — his age is an issue, for all the reasons Kay and others have elucidated.
I think the challenges ahead of us require a better mix of the wisdom of experience and the freshness of youth.
Also, to forestall any concerns: I don’t think there’s any (good) choice but to run with Biden again and do everything possible to re-elect him — the risks of a bruising primary and forgoing the advantages of incumbency are just too great, and they tower over any risk of Biden’s age catching up with him before he’s elected.
But, as with Pelosi, we shouldn’t keep finding ourselves in these situations where (and it’s not hyperbole to state) that the future of democracy’s at stake, so we just have to white-knuckle it.
H.E.Wolf
@Cacti:
“@H.E.Wolf: And does your age start with a 5, a 6, or 7?”
It definitely starts with either an I or a V. :)
Kent
You wouldn’t need to do that because it would actually work in reverse. If you survey the halls of power in every sector of society: universities, government, business, judiciary, it is old white males who dominate. It doesn’t matter whether you are talking about university deans or CEOs or Senators. Pushing the whole lot of them into retirement would automatically make every sector of power in this country younger, more diverse, and probably more liberal.
And if one old woman like Feinstein is forced into retirement in order to do the same to 10 old white men then it would be worth it. This isn’t about Feinstein who is worth an estimated $100 million and will be just fine. It is about the future of the country
And if they still want to keep their feet wet, let them putter about in think tanks or in emeritus roles like Henry Kissinger who never seems to go away.
Omnes Omnibus
That’s fair. My concern (well, one of my concerns) is that I want people to be aware of the up and downsides of a rule like this. Sometimes people see problem and look to fix it without noticing the other consequences of the fix. I disagree with the proposal. In part because I think the downside risk is high than the benefit, but also because I think that voters in a democracy should get to choose their representatives with as few restrictions as possible. Others’ mileage clearly varies.
db11
I should also add that if 80 were the cut-off for standing for office then Pelosi would have been fine and Biden’s first term would also come in under the wire.
The succession issue and primary dynamics would unfold much differently if everyone knew ahead of time that Biden was age-limited for a second term.
I think Joe’s too old to run, but that he has he has to under the current circumstances — I suspect that a lot of Dem supporters feel the same way, which maybe why there’s not a ton of enthusiasm for a Biden second-term showing up in the polls (though they have improved recently).
But when push comes to shove I’m going to bet that those voters stick with him — in spite of their misgivings — because they know what’s at stake. They also believe that he’s been a very good president and will continue to be so — as long as he maintains his physical/cognitive health.
db11
@db11:
This was — obviously I hope — a glitch: I meant to say Feinstein.
Pelosi is actually a very positive example of an old (of which I’m one) who stuck around longer to impart her wisdom, congressional experience and institutional memory to the benefit of all (Dems) involved — without lingering beyond her ‘best before’ date.
She also did a great job of mentoring younger Dems and gracefully passing the baton (or gavel in this case) to Hakeem Jeffries.
WaterGirl
@Omnes Omnibus: Personally, I think you are right most of the time!
Tony Jay
@Paul in KY:
Consistency, that’s the key. 🏆
WaterGirl
@Cacti: Merrick Garland has Trump lined up in his sights, and most every time Trump opens his mouth he admits to another crime and makes the case for “intent” in his upcoming indictments.
Amazing that your crystal ball can know that it will take a decade!
WaterGirl
@Cacti: No, Omnes took your shit and gave it right back to you.
Are you actually going to pretend that you were asking a serious question, asking for an answer?
hahahahaha
Kay
@Mai Naem mobile:
Right, so either get used to having this problem once every couple of years for the next decade, or stop telling these people they never have to retire and the ony consideration is what they, personally “want” or that this has something to do with “feminism” or that they are heroes for insisting on working sick. She’s ill. She needs to go home. Ginsburg was falling asleep on the bench I assume due to illness. That’s not fair to litigants.
New norm- they’re expected to start planning retirement at 70 with a 5 year wind down because that’s good for the country. Orderly. No chaos. Country first.
Omnes Omnibus
@WaterGirl:
Not worth the effort.
The Moar You Know
@Kay: last person I knew who had a “minor fall” (it was) in his mid-80s, who was in far better shape than McConnell, died.
Past 80, most folks’ warranty has run out.
Kay
My only consolation is Republicans aren’t any better at this than Democrats are. Many of their senators are also elderly and in poor health and Clarence Thomas isn’t giving up his lavish lifestyle easy- he’ll die on the bench.
Kay
@The Moar You Know:
Ask them in every interview : “any plans for retirement?” :)
Geminid
@WaterGirl: I did not say or try to imply that a D+3 district is a sure thing, only that the district is rated D+3.
I guess I was pushing back some on a common notion that only Katie Porter could win that district. We’ll find out next year if that’s true.
Mai Naem mobile
@Kay: I am just pointing out that you’re not going to get the same people who would lose power to vote to lose that power.
Ruckus
@SW:
I am a senior. I have had shingles. If for no other reason than it hurts like hell, and no, I am not kidding in the least, and I am able to say that you are correct, it hurt far worse than being hit by a truck and yes I’ve been hit by a truck and no I was not in a vehicle. It also went away faster than the after effects of being hit by that truck. It hit me on the side of my face and down my neck. The pain is sharp, hard and constant and stays that way till the sores start to go away.
Kay
I think we have to move them away from thinking they are irreplaceable and remind them that it’s the larger project that they serve.
We won’t get there by telling them over and over that it is actually about them.
Tony Jay
@apocalipstick:
1) You are correct, I am of the British persuasion.
2) I don’t think LTC was replying to me.
Mai Naem mobile
Yes, DiFi shouldn’t have run in ’18. And the Republicans can’t be trusted with anything especially anything to do with the Judiciary. I wonder why Chuck Schumer didn’t have this is the governing agreement. After Kennedy/Byrd, Amy Coney Barrett, Merrick Garland, blue slips etc why would the appointment of a replacement not be written instead of going with precedent and norms.
WaterGirl
@Geminid: My point is just that any DEM is almost sure to win in Adam Schiff’s district, and we cannot say with any confidence that a DEM would replace Katy Porter in her district
Katie Porter being a known entity and being the incumbent is a big advantage in a Dem +3 district.
Citizen Alan
@Cacti: By “the state,” you mean Article I of the constitution. Adding a maximum statutory age, regardless of whether it’s a good idea, requires a constitutional amendment.
Geminid
@WaterGirl: Yes, and that is why some people wish Porter passed on the Senate race. She wanted a bigger platform though, and she has an ardent fan base in and beyond California who want that also.
Local Democrats will just have to make the best of the situation. Hopefully former Rep. Rouda, state Senator Min and the others won’t cut each other up too much in the primary.
Cacti
@WaterGirl: Okay grandma.
Tony G
@Kay: It will never happen for a boatload of reasons, but I’d like to see a mandatory retirement age of (let’s say) 70 for the President, Vice President and all federal judges, senators and congressional representatives. I’m 67 myself and I know that I’m not what I was 5 or 10 years ago. Call me “ageist” if you want.
Tony G
@Cacti: Is this seventh grade or kindergarten? Jesus Christ.
SW
@Ruckus: Problem is for some people, it never goes away.
Paul in KY
@Tony G: I am not for mandatory retirement ages. I am just for sick people on our side getting a clue and seeing the biggerer picture.