Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Opinion: Dianne Feinstein was harder on preteen climate activists than she was on Amy Coney Barrett
By Mariah Kreutter
Oct. 16, 2020
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-10-16/opinion-dianne-feinstein-was-harder-on-preteen-climate-activists-than-she-was-amy-coney-barrett
When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) eroded political norms by refusing to hold a vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in March of 2016, he set a precedent. The precedent was not, “A Supreme Court justice shouldn’t be appointed in the last year of a president’s term.” The precedent was, “Republicans can do whatever they want.”
That fact was made obvious by the GOP’s rush to fill the seat left empty by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death a mere 46 days before the 2020 election. The hypocrisy was clear, but that hardly mattered. Republicans control the Senate now, just as they did when President Obama nominated Garland. Few of them are likely to defect. Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg, will almost certainly be confirmed.
But did Democrats — and Sen. Dianne Feinstein in particular — really need to give in so easily?
Feinstein, California’s senior senator and the highest-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, questioned Barrett on abortion access, the Affordable Care Act and gun control during this week’s Senate hearings. But her questions weren’t particularly tough, and she didn’t say anything that invoked the single biggest issue with Barrett’s nomination: that it’s a blatant Republican power grab threatening to hopelessly politicize and destabilize the Supreme Court, and it shouldn’t be happening in the first place.
Instead, Feinstein thanked Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey “I want you to use my words against me” Graham (R-S.C.) for his leadership during the hearing. “This has been one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in, and I want to thank you for your fairness and the opportunity of going back and forth,” she said.
SNIP
That fact was made obvious by the GOP’s rush to fill the seat left empty by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death a mere 46 days before the 2020 election. The hypocrisy was clear, but that hardly mattered. Republicans control the Senate now, just as they did when President Obama nominated Garland. Few of them are likely to defect. Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg, will almost certainly be confirmed.
But did Democrats — and Sen. Dianne Feinstein in particular — really need to give in so easily?
Feinstein, California’s senior senator and the highest-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, questioned Barrett on abortion access, the Affordable Care Act and gun control during this week’s Senate hearings. But her questions weren’t particularly tough, and she didn’t say anything that invoked the single biggest issue with Barrett’s nomination: that it’s a blatant Republican power grab threatening to hopelessly politicize and destabilize the Supreme Court, and it shouldn’t be happening in the first place.
Instead, Feinstein thanked Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey “I want you to use my words against me” Graham (R-S.C.) for his leadership during the hearing. “This has been one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in, and I want to thank you for your fairness and the opportunity of going back and forth,” she said.
SNIP
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
