Democrats Seem More Concerned About Dianne Feinstein's Feelings Than About Balancing the Courts
Charles Pierce weighs in...
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a43635391/democrats-response-dianne-feinstein-courts-retirement/
No paywall
In November of 1970, Pope Paul VI, not known for raising hell on subjects other than birth control, nevertheless raised some hell by issuing a document with the formidable Latin title, Ingravescentem aetatem (Advancing Age). In it, the pope revised the rules by which his successors would be elected. He took the vote away from any member of the College of Cardinals who was over the age of 80. That was a lot of them, as it turned out, and many of them were quite influential; one of them accused the pope of "contempt of tradition that is centuries old." By the second conclave of 1978, the one that elected John Paul II, 66 cardinals had aged out. Paul VI's restrictions had prevailed. In light of this, it is quite remarkable to discover that compared to the Roman Catholic Church, the United States Senate is in many ways behind the times.
Right now, Senator Dianne Feinstein is hors de combat because you don't bounce back from illness quickly when you're 89. She will not resign her seat so that a replacement can be named. Because it takes a unanimous consent vote to replace her on the Senate Judiciary Committee with another Democrat, the Republicans are refusing to do so. Consequently, the effort of the current administration to straighten out the Trumpified federal judiciary is stalling out. And, of course, the Democratic majority can't stop doing the tarantella on its own dick. From Politico:
Republicans’ blockade of the resolution to replace Feinstein will effectively make it tougher for Democrats to confirm more judges — which Biden’s party can normally do unilaterally with a 51-49 majority. The judiciary panel’s chair, Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), has repeatedly delayed committee votes on lifetime appointees during Feinstein’s treatment for shingles. Democrats still have some judicial nominees ready for floor votes, but that list will run dry relatively soon without action at the Judiciary Committee. Schumer said he expects Feinstein to return to the Senate soon and that “We think the Republicans should allow a temporary replacement till she returns. I hope the Republicans will join us in making sure this happens, since it is the only right and fair thing to do.”
That last sentence makes me wonder if it isn't Schumer who should get the gold watch. How he still can say that with a straight face makes me wonder if he hasn't gone, as the late, great George V. Higgins put it, soft as church music in the job. The Republicans left "right and fair" further behind than they've left "joining" the Democrats on something as vital as judges. In addition, Richard Durbin, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, seems more concerned about Feinstein's feelings than he is about balancing the courts. (He does reliably "deplore" the decisions that emerge from it, so there's that.) This is also another example that the Senate's "traditions," most of which have their roots in the Senate's almighty opinion of itself, are inadequate to the present situation, depending as they do on good faith bargaining from both sides.
With Feinstein absent — and her timetable to ever return to Washington increasingly uncertain — the committee is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. That means judicial nominees without bipartisan support cannot come to the Senate floor without laborious procedural votes to shake them loose. Even then, those votes would face a 60-senator threshold.
The stakes are extra-high now: Confirming judges is one of the top Senate Democratic priorities given GOP control of the House. “Tomorrow, this could happen to the Republicans and they could find themselves in a vulnerable position through no fault of their own,” Durbin said Monday. “And I hope that they’ll show a little kindness and caring for their colleagues.”
*snip*
= new reply since forum marked as read
'Tis all.
As I mentioned, I enjoy a hearty debate and discussion. The seeming inconsistencies of the alert/jury system has me questioning if I should post an article like the one you posted. I read this Charles Pierce piece earlier, but decided not to post it because I didn't want to get another post removed - for bashing Dems.
