Why is this about Dianne Feinstein, and not about the party neglecting to defend her seat?

[bigtree]

...when the Senate Democrats could organize a vote on a simple majority to change the filibuster rules on replacing ailing or long absent committee members?

In my view, calling out Sen. Feinstein and demanding she resign because Cornyn or the others won't allow a replacement is tantamount to asking her to surrender her seat primarily because of republican demands.

What happened to our Senate majority? Are they really unable to gather enough votes among them to defend their own colleague?

[WhiteTara]

1. This how women are treated, bigtree

we are almost human, but probably not.

[brer cat]

2. Well said!

[WhiteTara]

5. ...

[mcar]

15. Here in FL, we're not

[ananda]

32. Nor in Texas.

Anywhere really, because if one person is oppressed,
everyone is.

[WhiteTara]

34. well, join the depression club

because oppression is rampant.

[GuppyGal]

23. And when you throw in old...forget about it. nt

[blm]

3. What Would Mitch Do? Do that!

[Kid Berwyn]

29. It's the two sides of the same coin thing.

“Heads GOP wins. Tails DEMs lose.”

Works every time.

[ripcord]

4. Older women are supposed to sit around and crochet don't you know

[LonePirate]

6. I'm guessing Manchin and Sinema won't support removing the filibuster so we have no majority.

Given these circumstances, Feinstein needs to resign.

[bigtree]

12. tell me again why the onus is on Sen. Feinstein

...if this is about Sinema and Manchin refusing to defend her replacement?

Again, some objectionable legislator won't act, so a Democratic Senator needs to resign? When did appeasing republican obstinacy and hardball become more important than defending our own party members?

It's not as if Sen. Feinstein has done anything wrong; abused her position, violated the law or is involved in some ethical dispute.

This is plain and simply about appeasing republicans for their obstruction. Not a bill or initiative at stake, but the seat of a senior Senator threatened. Republicans betting that with all of the abandonment this week of Dianne Feinstein, Democrats might just be willing to roll over for this abomination.

I'll never forget who called for a sitting Democratic Senator to resign just to appease republican thuggery, and agreed republicans should be allowed to dictate when that seat goes vacant.

[LonePirate]

16. Have you slept through all of the Republican hardball tactics for the past 15 years?

Do you truly believe they will budge if Schumer applies enough pressure to them? You're out of touch if you think that will happen.

There are two options here.
(1) Do nothing and let the Judiciary Committee backlog balloon in hopes that Feinstein returns, if she does.
(2) She resigns, Newsom appoints a new Senator for CA and Schumer places a different Dem Senator on the Judiciary Committee.

We cannot afford to wait for #1 as that day may never come. That leaves us with #2. For the good of the country and the party, she needs to resign. She's been a great mayor and Senator; but it is time to exit the stage gracefully.

[bigtree]

24. hold a vote on the rule that it takes 60 votes to replace a committe member who's ailing and absent

...it would take a simple majority to change it.

If the party can't do that, then what good is the majority? It's not Sen. Feinstein surrendering to them, it's ostensibly the party.

[LonePirate]

40. That vote will fail. It's not a problem with our majority that we cannot reach 60 Ayes for that.

She needs to resign. There are no other options. Sometimes someone has to fall on their sword for the good of the cause. Feinstein needs to do just that.

[bigtree]

43. why would it fail?

...we have enough Democrats to pass such a rules change.

Notwithstanding some party mambers who haven't felt any pressure at all to stand with our Democratic majority.

[LonePirate]

48. That rules change to swap her temporarily requires 60 votes, not 50 votes.

[bigtree]

54. the rules change I'm talking about is to remove that filibuster

...keep up.

[LonePirate]

59. And that will fail due to Manchin and Sinema. The only option is for her to resign.

[bigtree]

63. then WHERE is the pressure on those two?

...where is it? The Party hasn't brought any. Pundits calling for Feinstein to resign haven't called for any.

You haven't brought any, just this argument that these two won't act.

[LonePirate]

64. That pressure was applied with the HR 1 election bill. It failed so why bother trying again?

Why are you so adamantly supportive of the continued obstruction caused by her absence and so dismissive of the easiest solution to this mess?

[bigtree]

65. how is forcing a Democratic senator to resign the 'easy solution?'

...I'd imagine it could appear that way to someone already inclined to remove her.

But the 'easy' solution is just using a simple majority to pass a rules change allowing a simple majority vote to temporarily replace senators who are sick and absent.

Not only that, but there's been zero promise or guarantee that republicans won't just refuse to vote to allow a vote on seating a new member, filibustering that effort.

[FBaggins]

70. Missing a critical point

As I said earlier - the constitution does not recognize parties… just senators. And we don’t have a majority (simple or otherwise) to change that rule.

[bigtree]

74. no, you are

...it's the party that holds the majority in the U.S. Senate which has the power to blocks bills from receiving unanimous consent.

[FBaggins]

80. Untrue

It is not “the party that holds the majority”… it is any 51 votes.

And there aren’t 51 votes to change that rule. You are, in fact, pushing for a minority to have the power to change the rule just because a majority would take advantage of the rule change.

[bigtree]

82. so what you're saying is this Democratic majority which has 51 Democrats caucusing

...can pull this off, save Manchin, and ostensibly Sinema.

That's not a Feinstein problem, it's another Manchin/Sinema problem (the point).

[FBaggins]

87. I'm saying that any combination smaller than a majority...

… cannot exercise the power of the majority.

And that includes minorities that are made up of a group that otherwise considers itself a majority. You cannot say “the majority of democrats want ‘x’ and we’re in the majority” if the people who want ‘x’ are not a majority of senators.

[inthewind21]

41. WOW

So your first instinct is to have a sitting ELECTED senator resign because you are in a panic over judicial nominations just NOW. Who's not been paying attention for the past 15 years?

[ripcord]

61. She has said she won't resign

It is sad that people, including democrats, will continue to try and bully her into resigning.

[Hekate]

78. Appeasement: that's the word I've been looking for. Look how well it worked with Hitler & Putin. nt

[Lancero]

7. The ironic thing is that it isn't about Dianne Feinstein either. Compare the attacks against her...

To those against Biden.

We're pushing back against those bogus attacks, quite heavily. But now that certain groups have a woman in their sights, well... A lot of people here can't resist jumping on that bandwagon.

Getting rid of Biden is their end goal, but if laying the ground work for that gets rid of Dianne too... Well, that's just a nice little bonus far as they're concerned.

[Raine]

8. Agree with you in wondering why

I guess being an older woman has plenty to do with the answer.

[Srkdqltr]

9. Why are we hearing about her alone? Grassley is the same age.

Its ageism and against women.

[BlueTsunami2018]

10. Is Grassley absent and holding up the important work of the country?

If the situation were reversed, the GOP would have already replaced him. They don’t let anything get in the way of their goals.

[bigtree]

13. Democrats would likely have allowed them

...this is republicans playing hardball.

What are Democrats going to do in response? Demand the senior Senator from California appease them by retiring?

[inthewind21]

42. Well

Fetterman has been gone for months. You think he should resign as well?

[GuppyGal]

25. +1000

[Hortensis]

11. A big reason for not removing barriers that Democrats can use to

stop Republicans from doing their worst is that their worst comes so frequently and can be so incredibly damaging. Since they don't have to fear destructive and harmful behaviors from us, they'd get the bigger benefit. Our senate majority is balanced on a knife edge, and 2024's coming fast.

[bigtree]

14. what's the over and under for Democrats doing the decent thing and agreeing to replacements

...for ailing republican committee members?

Do you really believe there would be some issue with the majority of Democrats over allowing a temporary replacement for an ailing member, whatever the party?

I'm certain this is just an abomination restricted to republicans.

[FBaggins]

17. You aren't looking at parallel scenarios

If it happened now democrats would likely be unanimous in allowing them to replace a committee member.

But if Trump were president and republicans had the tie-breaking committee vote for judicial appointments in the hospital? We would definitely block that replacement.

[bigtree]

27. we're back to allowing blue slips, even though we control the Senate

...we accomodate them in the majority all of the time, and this is just a simple fairness.

If republicans were elected into the majority, they would assume EVERY right available and exercise even those rights not expressly given to them in order to have their way.

What we're doing now is appease their behavior, in the MAJORITY, which won't end with this abomination if we show them we're afraid to act to defend our own WHEN WE HAVE THE POWER.

[FBaggins]

30. I'm not arguing both-siderism or that we aren't "fairer" in general

I’m talking about a very specific scenario.

If merely failing to consent to a committee change would have held up TFG’s judicial nominations… Democrats would absolutely have taken advantage of the rules to do so and DUer opinion of that action would be overwhelmingly positive.

[bigtree]

31. and I'm telling you that Democrats don't operate that way

...they don't assume powers not enumerated to them, and this is a theft of not only a committee seat, but a Senate seat, as well.

Republicans in power don't have any need for Democrats to appease them. They do what they please, so the suggestion is that they couldn't or wouldn't make this move on their own if in a similar situation. That's novel.

[FBaggins]

33. Sorry - That's nonsense

Committees are not “enumerated” in the first place and there are no parties assumed in the constitution (let alone party control of committees).

If the rules that we agreed to require a vote of the full senate in order to change committee membership - then the “fairness” argument is all that you have.

And you’re nuts if you think that Democrats in a similar scenario would not withhold such consent if it meant blocking one or more of TFG’s appointees to the courts.

We did it for decades - including during TFG’s administration.

[bigtree]

35. Democrats could no more withhold consent against a republican majority vote

... in a simple majority rules change action, than republicans could with this majority.

The 'enumerated' part is about the prerogative of the majority which is granted through elections. Republicans have no right to dictate that seat, and only do so with our party's acquiescence.

[FBaggins]

38. Again - we do it all the time

The rules say that appointments come to the floor one at a time and there is a multi-day process before the final vote comes to the floor. For decades this was set aside by unanimous consent and confirmations ran through in groups because the majority had the votes. But we regularly gummed up the works by denying unanimous consent - which significantly impacted TFG’s ability to bring confirmations to the floor.

[bigtree]

46. this is about a TEMPORARY replacement. Not a fair comparison.

...something that our majority should be entitled to, and if not, something they should vote to remedy themselves, instead of sacrificing one of their senators.

[FBaggins]

57. I know what it's about

And I’m telling you that you’re flat wrong if you think that we wouldn’t use the same parliamentary shenanigans to slow down TFG’s judges of the opportunity presented itself.

[bigtree]

58. you can't block a simple majority rules change vote

...with a minority of Senators.

You just can't. There are no parliamentary shenanigans that can stop that.

[FBaggins]

66. Of course you can

Allow me to introduce you to the US Senate.

Where they stop simple majority votes all the time.

[bigtree]

68. you're just wrong

...if there's no 60-vote requirement, there is no chance for an opposition filibuster.

There just isn't. This isn't rocket science.

And fuck-all with the condescenscion about understanding the Senate. You've made a false representation of the rules.

NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/17/1072714887/filibuster-explained#How%20Could%20It%20Change?

...changing Senate rules would require the backing of all the current Senate Democrats, two of whom — West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema — have said they oppose doing so. Sinema reiterated her position on January 13, even as President Biden was preparing to visit the Capitol and argue for change on behalf of voting rights legislation Republicans are blocking.

With the current rules under pressure, Republicans have pushed back, arguing that changing the rules would hurt any chance for bipartisanship going forward...

Notice that there's nothing in this about republicans being actually able to stage a filibuster when there's no provision for one in the Senate rules.

[bigtree]

56. how does the republican minority block a simple majority vote?

...it does not 'happen all the time.'

[FBaggins]

67. They same way we did

Deny unanimous consent and forcing them to follow the rules they agreed to

[bigtree]

71. you're wrong

...example:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked an attempt by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to set up simple majority votes on a sweeping elections bill and legislation to bolster the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which would have allowed Democrats to pass the two bills without GOP support.

Schumer, on the Senate floor, detailed his offer: allowing the two bills to need only a simple majority to pass instead of needing the normal 60 votes to advance in the Senate. In exchange, Democrats would sign off on holding simple majority votes on nearly 20 bills that Republicans placed on the Senate calendar, which makes them available for a vote but doesn’t guarantee they’ll get one.

McConnell, however, rejected Schumer’s offer without elaborating on his objection. Under the Senate’s rules, any one senator can try to set up a vote or pass a bill, but because it requires signoff from the full Senate, any one senator can also object and block the request.

Schumer is expected to force votes this week on both the Freedom to Vote Act, which would overhaul federal elections, and separate voting legislation named after the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) that would strengthen the 1965 Voting Rights Act. But Republicans are set to use the 60-vote legislative filibuster to block those bills from advancing.

Once that happens, Schumer vowed to bring up changing the legislative filibuster by Jan. 17, bringing to a head months of behind-the-scenes negotiations among Democrats as they’ve tried to unify on rules changes.

To change the rules, Democrats need total unity from all 50 of their members, something they don’t yet have. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) both support a supermajority requirement for legislation, while others, including Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), haven’t yet taken a position. Democrats also haven’t landed on what proposal would unite the other 48 members of the caucus besides Manchin and Sinema, with some senators supportive of a talking filibuster, while others back a carveout for voting rights.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/589119-mcconnell-blocks-simple-majority-votes-dems-voting-rights-bills/

...note that the success of the rules change depends on uninimity from Democrats, not on republicans evoking unanimous consent.

And all we're talkng about here is a small carve-out for a temporary replacement for ailing, absent members on a committee.

[FBaggins]

72. I have no idea how you can say "you're wrong"...

… and then give an example that proves my point.

[bigtree]

75. it does not prove your point.

...The Senate could move to weaken the filibuster without eliminating it entirely.

A Senate majority could detonate a “mini-nuke” that bans filibusters on particular motions but otherwise leaves the 60-vote rule intact. For example, a Senate majority could prevent senators from filibustering the motion used to call up a bill to start (known as the motion to proceed). This would preserve senators’ rights to obstruct the bill or amendment at hand, but would eliminate the supermajority hurdle for starting debate on a legislative measure.

In both 2013 and 2017, the Senate used this approach to reduce the number of votes needed to end debate on nominations. The majority leader used two non-debatable motions to bring up the relevant nominations, and then raised a point of order that the vote on cloture is by majority vote. The presiding officer ruled against the point of order, but his ruling was overturned on appeal—which, again, required only a majority in support. In sum, by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule.
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-is-the-senate-filibuster-and-what-would-it-take-to-eliminate-it/

[FBaggins]

79. Of course it does

The existing rules required 60 votes if the senate did not grant unanimous consent… and changing that rule required a “nuke” that required 51 votes that we didn’t have.

Same situation now. There are at most 48 votes to change the standing rules… and that isn’t a majority.

[Demsrule86]

81. Not true, we just get a bunch today and the GOP how howling like spoiled brats.

There is a thread...and nowadays a blue slip is only a courtesy and not binding.

[Autumn]

86. Why do you suppose we accommodate them in the majority all of the time because when they have

a majority OR a even a minority they never accommodate us? Isn't that appeasement? The Dems have been accommodating them for years. But what are we getting out of Feinstein staying in office? No vote for judges, just a vote on bills, if she's well enough. I'm sure the governor would appoint another Democrat that would vote with us. I don't feel I owe any politician any loyalty for doing their job. They are well taken care of by our tax dollars, more so than the majority of the Dems that vote for them.

[MiniMe]

18. Feinstein has asked to be removed from the judiciary committee because she realizes that this is a

problem. But the repukes won't let her be removed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. Surely we have some sharp as tacks strategists, analysts,

legal eagles?? Don't we? If THEY can come up with screwy ideas, surely we can employ someone with countermeasure ideas?

[Phoenix61]

20. It isn't about her at all. It's about getting as

many of Biden’s judges seated as possible. That’s it. There is precedent for replacing a Senator when they are unable to complete their term.

[Sky Jewels]

36. This.

This is a specific scenario. Judicial nomination confirmations are crucial.

The charges of "sexism" and "ageism" are ridiculous, IMHO.

[ProfessorPlum]

84. agreed, what the hell, we can't sit around and stop getting judges through

that would be suicide.

[bigtree]

37. then the party should change the filibuster rule for replacing nominees

...republicans wouldn't hesitate to protect their own members.

[maxrandb]

21. It's not about Senator Feinstein. It's not about Dems "not defending" her seat

It's about the media trying to promote and push a "Dems in disarray" BS story, at the behest of, and to benefit the Retrumplican Party.

Sure, there were a couple of Dems out of hundreds that got their knickers in a bind due to a slight delay in President Biden's record setting judicial appointments process, but that's because they fall for the Retrumplican and media ploy of convincing people that Retrumplicans "Always Win", even when they're losing.

They just had about the worst mid-term cycle in history for a party out of the White House, spent 15 rounds to elect the weakest Speaker of the House in history, got stomped by 11 points in WI, and are facing a massive backlash from the most corrupt, partisan, not rooted in law court decisions from circuit to supreme court...so, the natural reaction of the media is to find something...ANYTHING...to resuscitate Retrumplicans.

This is the perfect "Dems in disarray" story, because sure, it's perfectly normal to ask if a 90 year old that has been out sick for months is able to serve.

The bigger point that needs to be made is this.

If JD Vance and Run Johnson had been defeated, we wouldn't need to worry about Feinstein.

But make no mistake. This entire "Dems in disarray" bullshit is designed to portray Retrumplicans as "strong and powerful" and Dems as weak.

Bullies must always be portrayed as inevitable winners, because in reality, they are spineless punks.

If Americans ever understand that, the Retrumplican party is dead.

[bigtree]

22. it's a vote to change the rules to allow for a simple majority to replace a committee member

...or else we agree to republican demands that it's her retirement or nothing.

When have Senate Democrats EVER sacrificed a Senator to appease republican obstinacy?

That's what the demand is. The Senator resign and we'll consider allowing a replacement on the committee.

You do know there have been ZERO guarantees republicans will allow the seating of a new senator on the committee - just a vague suggestion from Cornyn that it would be 'an easier lift."

This is what we're jettisoning a Democratic senator for? Republican obstruction? Republicans play hardball and Democrats IN THE MAJORITY play defense? What kind of majority lets the opposition remove an ailing Senator in the dubious hope republicans will concede?

Sacrificing a Senator because the party won't act to defend her by changing the rules to accomodate her. But damn if republicans won't change the rules to accomodate their own. You'd NEVER see them refuse to do this.

[maxrandb]

26. Will, when your have Manchin and Sinema, good luck in changing the filibuster

That's why I said if WI and OH had not elected fascists, we wouldn't be in his situation.

BTW - I am extremely proud to belong to the party that support rules, decorum and traditions. I know it sucks, and I am so tempted to just say "Eff it" and sink to the other sides level, I am not sure that's the best course to preserve our Democracy.

[bigtree]

28. so it's Manchin and Sinema blocking the solution to advancing nominations out of that committee?

...and forcing the senior Senator to resign?

Where's the pressure on THEM? All of this pressure on an ailing Senator because a couple of Democrats won't stand up to republicans, and all of the scorn is placed on the sick Senator?

You shouldn't be resigned to that. DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE OUTRAGED, save for the bias around here against the Senator in question.

Link to tweet

[maxrandb]

69. No, I am saying that it requires 60 votes to replace her

The two senators I mentioned are not the only ones that don't want to change the committee assignment rules

You could also says we should pressure 8 RETRUMPLICANS to be decent about it.

The issue may resolve itself. Senator Feinstein could return in a week, and all this "yammering" and "Dems in disarray" BS will be moot.

They wheeled Strom Thurmond around until her was 100. Do you think Dems would have just said; "sure, go ahead and replace him with Jesse Helms so you can get judges confirmed."?

[kwolf68]

39. Another argument against career politicians

I am philosophically opposed to term limits. I believe the voters should choose much as that is nearly impossible against entrenched incumbents, but I wish these politicians would come to realize they don't need to die in freaking congress. It's actually OK if these people walk away before they are in Hospice care and allow a new generation take up the reigns. The Democratic Party, being the party of the youth, should focus on getting more young people into positions of leadership and power and not just a bunch of 80 year olds.

[inthewind21]

47. Well

If young people want young congress members they should put up young candidates. I don't see just a flood of "young people" running. So, there's that.

[Autumn]

44. They don't want to rock the boat. Feinstein has said she is going to retire and she's not going

anywhere till her term is up. Some people think she should step down now since she has not worked since February and much is not known about her health. Others don't. Tempest in a teapot. I'm of the opinion no one should be in the Senate in their 90s. There is no reason for it.

[inthewind21]

50. Well

Unless you live in California, you're opinion on DF is completely irrelevant.

[Autumn]

51. Bullfuckingshit. What she does impacts everyone in the country. Unless you are naive enough to

to believe anything she votes on only impacts Calif. That is the silliest excuse I have ever heard any one utter in my life.

[bigtree]

53. what the Democrats in the Senate refuse to do impacts them

...refusing to stand up to the republicans.

There's no way in hell republicans would allow Democrats to dictate the retirement of one of their Senators. They'd just change the rules, which is what Democrats should do immediately.

If they can't find the votes among them it's THEY, appeasing republican obstinacy, who are holding up the progress of the Senate, not a senator who has become ill and needs a temporary replacement.

[Autumn]

62. This is not the first time Democrats in the Senate refused to stand up to the republicans.

And it won't be the last.

[inthewind21]

55. No

Not BULLFUCKINGSHIT. She's a California senator. California elected her. That's how Senatorial elections work. Were you unaware of that?

[Autumn]

60. Does she vote on bills and judges that impact people that are OUTSIDE of California?

All the judges she has voted for serve in California? I know one she voted for serves in Minnesota. Not California. You aware of that? Last election she got 6,019,422 votes. Not a one of them was from Minnesota yet her vote impacted them.

[GuppyGal]

73. Please just put your pitchfork away. NT

[bigtree]

76. +1000

...

[Autumn]

83. Facts are not pitchforks. They do seem to be uncomfortable for some people. What she does

does not just impact people in her state that voted for her.

[tinrobot]

45. Could they get 50+ votes for that measure without Feinstein's vote?

We're at 51 in a full chamber, 50 without Senator Feinstein.

Subtract out Sinema, maybe Manchin and it doesn't pass.

[bigtree]

49. yet ALL of the pressure is on an ailing senator

..instead of those in the party who presumably wouldn't act to remedy this.

It's amazingly crass and base to demand the Senator retire without making demands these Democrats defend the party's priorities in the committee by simply voting.

It's an outrage.

[inthewind21]

52. This

is just another example of how we got here in the first place. Manchin and Sinema. Defended with vigor here all the time because of the inability to see that yes, they claim to be D's but, if they vote WITH R's then that "majority" is useless.

People freaking out and calling for a D Senator to step down NOW because of judicial appointments. Wouldn't it have been nice if the judiciary freakout/realization had been had BEFORE 2016 when the judicial was handed over to Trump and the Supreme Court was lost? It's like some think Biden is going to be able to appoint the country out of the colossal mess created because a very lot of voters completely failed to see the big picture Newsflash, he will not be able to and it won't be Diane Fienstein's fault.

[Hekate]

77. Thank you, bigtree. Spot on. As Nancy Pelosi noted: No MAN has ever had this demand to leave...

… no matter how long his absence.

Just sayin’

[ProfessorPlum]

85. this is not a sexism issue

there have been plenty of male and female senators who have retired when they felt they no longer could serve due to medical/mental issues, with no fanfare. These situations come about when people like Feinstein and Strom Thurmond cling to their positions well past their ability to serve.

[MustLoveBeagles]

88. K&R