How likely is it that Senate republicans would allow a retired Feinstein replacement to be seated?

[bigtree]

Last edited Mon Apr 17, 2023, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)

...they've just decided to take advantage of an ailing member's absence.

Why would they then allow any new Senator to sit on the committee in her place, even if Gavin Newsome appointed a replacement?

I don't see any reason to expect they would allow the makeup of the committee to change, for any reason (even the precedent of replacing late members).

It's part of the organizing resolution the full Senate voted on, including each committee member. They will still need to hold a vote on any new Senator seeking a committee position.

What reason is there to believe, or what indication has there been, if any, from republicans that they would allow a successor to be seated on the committee?

I think at that point Leader Schumer could organize a simple majority for a rules change based on a break in precedent, but why not just do that now? Why not just change the super-majority rules for this situation, since republicans are already acting in bad faith?

What really stinks is it's now republicans who are forcing Sen. Feinstein to resign, along with Senate Democrats and others associating themselves with the party calling on her to resign BECAUSE OF republican obstinacy.

It's no longer just Democrats calling for her to leave town. Now they have republicans gloming onto those sentiments, expecting Democrats to follow suit to avoid republicans hurting them in committee.

This isn't Sen. Feinstein's disgrace, as so many are saying, it's the Senate Democrats' disgrace if they don't pull themselves together and change the rules to oppose this open obstruction, this open abuse of an ailing Democratic stalwart.

Everyone else acquiescing to this thuggery needs to ask themselves who they're really accommodating demanding Dianne Feinstein resign to appease republicans.

Even more of a question if republicans will even be satisfied with her retirement and just try and maintain the even split that advantages them anyway? Even so, in the end, this is about sacrificing a Democratic Senator to republican political hardball.

Not a bill, not an initiative, but a DEMOCRATIC SENATOR. That's what's being offered up to republicans here. I don't know how anyone can stand themselves appeasing them.

[Demsrule86]

1. We don't need 60 votes for replace Sen Feinstein and appoint a new Senator.

[RockRaven]

2. For the Senate seat, no. For the committee seat, yes. Committee make-up is part of the rules

package, which has to be voted on, and needs a cloture vote.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Could this stall any SCOTUS nominee too?

[dsc]

4. I am willing to bet the rules treat a vacancy different from a non vacancy

the number of senators in each party is in the rules and the names are as well to be sure but if a Senator leaves or dies then it would default to the number, we would be entitled to that extra member.

[bigtree]

6. why should we expect republicans will agree to that?

...it's one thng to have their assurance, it's another to just assume it and run the Senator out of town based on a hope and a wish.

[dsc]

7. My thinking is the rules account for that

if nothing else her replacement would get her committee slots but without her seniority. Otherwise her replacement would have no committee slots.

[bigtree]

8. it's not automatic

...there will still need to be a full Senate vote, I believe, with the same 60 vote threshold for bringing it to debate.

If there's no full Senate approval, all the new Senator will be able to vote on are measures brought to the floor.

[Demsrule86]

10. They don't get to agree or disagree.

[bigtree]

12. the committee seats are part of the organizing resolution

...with each and every committee member part of that vote.

To undo that agreement to replace a member requires some full Senate action.

[Demsrule86]

9. It is my understanding that they do not need 60 votes for the committee either if a new

Senator is appointed.

[bigtree]

13. why not?

...it's like any resolution that comes to the floor for a full Senate vote.

It's subject to filibuster.

[Freethinker65]

5. if Chuck Grassley stroked out, the GOP would demand an immediate replacement and get one.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Not at all likely

It appears the only way Biden will get any more judges confirmed for the rest of this term will be if DiFi returns to the senate and the judiciary committee.

[bigtree]

14. kick

...expanded.

This will either be remembered as the moment when Democrats stood up to republicans to defend their own, or the moment when they sacrificed a fellow, ailing Democratic Senator to satisfy republican demands.

Link to tweet

[Phoenix61]

15. Yep! My understanding is blue slips are a custom not a rule. nt