General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt appears GOP will allow Schumer to replace Feinstein on Judicary if she resigns.
Its the temporary substitution which is the unprecedented ask, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a GOP member of the Judiciary Committee, told HuffPost. If she were no longer a senator, yes. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dianne-feinstein-democrats-gerontocracy_n_64408a35e4b0d84038864bc9
ColinC
(8,232 posts)Because clearly it is not
Lovie777
(11,992 posts)substitution regardless of "unprecedented".
Anywho, Schumer could know how "unprecedented" the evil GQPs are.
wryter2000
(46,016 posts)I'd get it in writing. Maybe notarized.
Midnight Writer
(21,548 posts)Cha
(295,926 posts)SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)It's the temporary replacement that they object to, since it's never been done before, and we've never given them that courtesy when their guys got sick. McConnell got no temporary replacement when he was out with a concussion recently. Senators have always been replaced without issue when they resign or die in office. McConnell or Grassley can keel over anytime. Republicans want to be able to replace them on committees.
Regardless, we need a functioning Dem senator for the next year and a half. Feinstein has memory issues that aren't going to get better even if she recovers from her shingles complications.
unblock
(51,974 posts)FBaggins
(26,697 posts)I mean if were proposing things that we dont have the votes to accomplish. Why now aim high?
JohnSJ
(91,965 posts)chowder66
(9,011 posts)SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)It's the temporary replacement that they object to, since it's never been done before, and we've never given them that courtesy when their guys got sick. McConnell got no temporary replacement when he was out with a concussion recently. Senators have always been replaced without issue when they resign or die in office. McConnell or Grassley can keel over anytime. Republicans want to be able to replace them on committees.
RockRaven
(14,784 posts)rso
(2,262 posts)Wait, if Feinstein resigns and Newsom appoints a new Senator, why would the GQP have any say on who Schumer places on the Committee ? What am I missing ?
Fiendish Thingy
(15,369 posts)Which is subject to filibuster, including for vacancies.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)The primary complication is the unprecedented nature of a temporary replacement. The Senate would be setting a new precedent that has not been available to extended-absent senators in the past, Thorning said in an email, highlighting the absences of senators like Fetterman and former Senators Mark Kirk and Tim Johnson, who both experienced serious medical issues while in office.
https://newrepublic.com/article/171906/replacing-feinstein-headache-democrats-judiciary
If Republicans establish the precedent that replacing a dead or resigned senator on a committee requires 60 votes, it will bite them in the ass when McConnell or Grassley keel over. They expect to take over the Senate majority in 2024, and that could prevent them from controlling committees.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,369 posts)How do we know there wont be some strings and conditions attached to that statement by Cornyn?
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)Sure, let's force a DEM, DiFi, to resign because that will not only make all the DEMS calling for her head happy it will ensure republicans will play nice! Sure thing, DO IT NOW!
MyOwnPeace
(16,888 posts)When the fuck are Democrats going to learn how to fight back
theres always some fucking Democrat gumming up the works, eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, always making it impossible for their fellow Dems to get anything done.
its maddening.
some days its Joe Manchin. if its not Joe Manchin, its Kyrsten Sinema. if its not Kyrsten Sinema, its Dick Durbin.
this week, Republicans are once again up to their usual antics.
Senate Republicans blocked a simple request from an ailing Democratic colleague Tuesday, refusing to allow Sen. Dianne Feinstein to temporarily step away from her seat on the Judiciary Committee while she continues to recover from a serious illness. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer put the request on the floor, asking for unanimous consent for Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin to serve as the interim committee member, and Sen. Lindsey Graham objected, filibustering Feinsteins request.
breaking news: Republicans fucking suck.
so now, lacking a majority, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are powerless to get anything done. they cant confirm judges. they cant hold hearings. they cant investigate Clarence Thomas.
time for some retaliation, right? time to fight fire with fire? its not like the Democrats are completely helpless here:
You would think that right now would be a great time for Committee Chair Dick Durbin to announce that he was no longer honoring blue slips in retaliation for the Republicans blocking a Feinstein replacement.
You would be thinking wrong. After the blocked vote, Durbin told Huffington Post: Were not at that point yet of abandoning the blue slip tradition.
what?
why not?
why the fuck not?
over and over, we see this same scenario play out.
once again, Republicans have pulled down the Democrats pants, taken their lunch money, and stuffed them into a locker.
and once again, Democrats have responded with maybe if were nice to them, next time for sure theyll stop beating us up.
oh fucking please.
Democrats, please wake the fuck up. Marjorie Three Brain Cells is literally calling you pedophiles and youre still out here tut-tutting with your my esteemed colleague from Georgia bullshit as if youre a bunch of extras in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.
Democrats, youre getting rocks chucked at your heads. pick one the fuck up and chuck it back.
I promise you, it will feel good.
represent us.
please.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)onenote
(42,383 posts)You wrote: now, lacking a majority, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are powerless to get anything done. they cant confirm judges. they cant hold hearings.
This week the Committee reported 7 of the ten nominees that were on the agenda when Feinstein became ill.
A majority isn't needed to hold hearings on nominees. During Feinstein's absence (including just this week) the Committee held hearings on nominees. Two of those nominees are on the agenda for a Committee vote to be held next week.
While Feinstein was out, the full Senate confirmed over a dozen judicial nominees.
There still are (including the seven just reported), over 20 nominations that were approved by the Committee but haven't been submitted to the Senate for a vote. Even without Feinstein, the Democrats have a 50-49 majority in the Senate.
And the Committee can start an investigation of Thomas without having a majority; despite what some have claimed, the Committee leadership has no intention of starting that investigation with a subpoena, which would be poor strategy.
Facts matter.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)https://www.newsweek.com/dianne-feinstein-resign-senate-votes-judges-1793885
onenote
(42,383 posts)There are 13 nominations that haven't been voted on by the Committee. Two were just nominated this week, six were nominated at the end of February and in March and are just now getting hearings, something that Feinstein's absence did not impact since a majority isn't needed to hold hearings on nominees. That leaves five nominations that were made in January 2023. Two of those actually were made back in September and November of 2022 but weren't acted on and were resubmitted by President at the start of the new Congress on January 3. Feinstein's absence didn't prevent them from being acted on last year or earlier this year when she was around.
And as noted, after Feinstein became ill, the Senate still confirmed 14 nominations. There are over 20 nominations that have been approved by the committee that Durbin hasn't brought to the floor even though the Democrat have a majority of the full Senate whether or not Feinstein is available.e
Could Durbin be trying to deflect attention from that fact?
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)Autumn
(44,762 posts)Not because they are are fair and balanced judges.
onenote
(42,383 posts)That's the number of confirmed Biden judicial nominees that received one or more Republican votes.
I guess yous hope he stops nominating judges.
bigtree
(85,919 posts)..ONE republican senator who has blocked a replacement because, they would 'ram through' nominees, making a promise isn't something you'd normally nexpect a Democratic community to pay heed to, much less use it against our Democratic Senator, but here we are.
Go on and tell us how a progressive Barbara Lee (Newsome promised to appoint a 'black woman,') or a Katie Porter or Adam Schiff gets their vote to undo the organizing resolution?
C'mom, tell us you're taking the word of Cornyn on this, not withstanding that he's just ONE of them making this baiting promise to do away with the Democratic Senator from California?
The shit that passes for Democratic advocacy these days... now we have a republican's word presented here in opposition to the Democratic senator telling us it's fine and dandy to jettision her as ransom payment for the hijacking of that seat.
Go on and tell us how fine and dandy it is for the party to be led around by the bullying tactics of Cornyn and his ilk. You're taking his word. Go on and tell us how trustworthy he is.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)At least then I'll have a senator who can perform the rest of the job, even if Cornyn is lying.
But I don't think Cornyn is lying. They have an eye on McConnell or Grassley having to resign for health reasons as well, and will want to be able to replace them on committees. It's the temporary replacement that they object to, since it's never been done before. Senators have always been replaced without issue when they resign or die in office.
Regardless, CA, and the country, needs to have a functioning Democratic senator for the next year and a half. Feinstein has memory issues and that will not get better, even after she recovers from her shingles complications.
edisdead
(1,881 posts)What consequential votes has she missed?
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)edisdead
(1,881 posts)consequential meaning which judges were not appointed because of her?
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)edisdead
(1,881 posts)How many consequential votes?
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)"But I don't think Cornyn is lying. They have an eye on McConnell or Grassley having to resign for health reasons as well, and will want to be able to replace them on committees. It's the temporary replacement that they object to, since it's never been done before. Senators have always been replaced without issue when they resign or die in office."
This sounds eerily like all the "But I don't they are lying. The would never gut ROE, it's settled law. They said so!
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)Every Republican wanted to overturn Roe v Wade, so we knew they were lying about that.
Again, what's the downside to replacing Feinstein with an able Dem?
LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)edisdead
(1,881 posts)What consequential votes has she missed?
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)We may (many analysts say we likely will) lose the Senate in 2024.
The next year and a half may be our last chance to get Dems on federal courts until 2029. https://www.newsweek.com/dianne-feinstein-resign-senate-votes-judges-1793885
onenote
(42,383 posts)She missed votes on 11 nominees at the committee level. Eight of them have been approved.
Facts.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)The committee is split 10-10 with Feinstein missing, as Durbin said, and we cannot "consider nominees in these circumstances because a tie vote is a losing vote."
Facts.
onenote
(42,383 posts)Four haven't had hearings yet (including two nominated just this week, one nominated on March 21 and one nominated in late February). Feinstein's absence hasn't impacted those nominations since her absence doesn't impact the ability to hold hearings and a hearing is a prerequisite to a vote.
In addition, there are three other nominations that were submitted on March 21 that, because of the recess, not Feinstein's absence, just had hearings this week.
And one other nominee who hasn't had a hearing, Scott Colom, is being held up not because of Feinstein's absence, but because Sen. Durbin is honoring the "blue slip" objection of the republican senator Hyde-Smith of Mississippi.
That leaves five nominations have had hearings but haven't been considered by the Committee. Why haven't they been considered yet? Charnel Bjelkengren had her hearing in January and Kato Crews had his in March. Both did not perform well, raising questions about the viability of their nominations on the Senate floor. Amanda Brailsford also did not have a hearing until March 22. It's not clear what is holding up her nomination since she has the support of the two Republicans from Idaho. It's also not clear what is holding up Marian Gaston's nomination. Finally, Michael Delaney, who had a hearing in mid-February, hasn't gotten a committee vote because of opposition from some Democrats over his previous defense of parental notification laws.
In short, there are reasons why 13 nominations haven't yet been voted on by the committee, but those reasons largely have little or nothing to do with Feinstein's absence, but rather are attributable to their being too recent to even have had a hearing or only having had a hearing this past week, blue-slip opposition to the nominations, or questions about the nominee's ability to get enough Democrats on the senate floor to be confirmed.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)I'm trust Dick Durbin.
onenote
(42,383 posts)There are more than 20 nominations that have been approved by the Committee but haven't been voted on by the full Senate. Durbin should be pressuring Schumer if he's concerned about nominations not getting confirmed. He can't blame that on Feinstein.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)Durbin is not blaming Feinstein for the committee-approved nominees waiting for Senate votes.
Your suggestion that Durbin doesn't care if nominees are getting voted on in the Senate is false and has no place here. I am sure Durbin and Schumer talk regularly.
If Durbin doesn't have 11 votes, he doesn't bother scheduling a committee vote. He doesn't want good nominees getting voted down and having to start all over. He wants to hold back voting on a nominee until he has the votes to get that nominee out of committee. And right now he doesn't have the votes. We do have some nominees who got out of committee before Feinstein got sick, and those are being scheduled for Senate floor votes. But then after them, we've got nothing. The judicial nominee conveyor belt coming out of the Judiciary Committee has come to a stop because of Feinstein's absence.
I cant consider nominees in these circumstances because a tie vote is a losing vote in committee, Durbin said.
Asked if her absence has longer ramifications on the Democrats ability to confirm nominees, the Senate chairman said yes, of course it does, pointing to the long process of getting nominees scheduled for votes during precious floor time.
We still have some nominees left on the calendar that we can work on But we have more in the wings that we would like to process through the committee, Durbin said.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/10/politics/biden-judges-senate-blue-slips-absences/index.html
So if you're saying there are 20 Judiciary Committee approved nominees waiting for Senate floor votes, that means Durbin has even more than 20 "in the wings that we would like to process through the committee" but they can't because of Feinstein's absence.
And then there is the whole matter of Feinstein's memory issues, even if she recovers from her shingles complications. The 40 million residents of California deserve 2 functioning Democratic senators. They shouldn't have to wait for that for almost 2 years.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)There are currently 78 vacancies in the federal judiciary, but the president has only nominated someone for 36 of those slots.
Of those... 25 are already on the Senate floor waiting for final votes. Which means that those "wings" are awfully small... and include a number of "blue slip" candidates who are not being held up by Feinstein's absence.
There are not, in fact, "more than 20 in the wings"... there are between five and ten.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)FBaggins
(26,697 posts)More would be true if the number were just one or two. Youve imagined that hes saying more than what weve already approved.
But - once again - its ridiculous to debate what you think he meant or point out that the statement preceded the seven who were just approved
because there are no imaginary judges or classified lists. This is all public knowledge. Ive provided a summary link below, but there are others that list every court opening by date, who has been nominated, and where they are in the process.
There are currently 13 nominations pending in committee. Some are blocked by blue slips, some are too new to have even had a hearing
five were ready for a vote and held back because Feinstein wasnt there.
https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/priorities_policy/independence_of_the_judiciary/judicial_vacancies/
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)Even if it's just 5 as you contend, that is huge. It took just one federal judge, Kacsmaryk, to throw Mifepristone into limbo, the drug needed for over half of abortions and to treat miscarriages.
Women's lives are too important to let even 5 judges not get immediately confirmed. We may not have the Senate in 2024, there are twice as many Dems are up for reelection than Republicans. https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2024
We simply don't have time to waste.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Please tell us the last time that there were fewer than 13 judicial appointees waiting in committee.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)I get it, you don't think it's a big deal. I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that I think it is.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Since five federal judges are so critical (or even one), you must have scores of posts here criticizing the president, right?
There are dozens of currently empty seats that have not even received a nomination. Some of them have been empty for well over a year! You must be livid at Bidens failure to recognize that womens lives are at stake!
And Schumer must have received hundreds of furious posts from you. Twenty-five appointees have made it through the gauntlet of the committee yet they have not received a floor vote!
Thats unacceptable! Who cares that their combined record is one of the best in history?
onenote
(42,383 posts)And in most of those instances, Feinstein's absence has nothing to do with why the Committee has advanced those nominees yet, as explained in detail below:
Three of the thirteen were on the agenda this week. Although the Committee advanced 7 other nominees, those three were held for a later meeting. The three that were pulled from a vote included Michael Delaney, who has run into opposition from some Democrats. See https://apnews.com/article/biden-judicial-nominee-delaney-abortion-new-hampshire-68f2a0ed839c743873a16924a8bce148
The other two that were pulled were Charnelle Bjelkengren and Marian Gaston. Both of them had rather rough hearings which may or may not have contributed to the decision not to move their nominations forward.
That leaves ten other nominees "waiting in the wings". Why haven't they been scheduled for a vote? Well, two were nominated last week and haven't had an opportunity to be scheduled for a hearing yet. Four were nominated just before the March 31 recess and of those four, one still is waiting for a hearing and the other three just had their hearing on April 18. There usually is a time lag between the hearing and the nominee being scheduled for a vote, so the fact that they haven't had a vote yet says nothing about when they'll get one and whether Feinstein's absence will matter. One (Scott Colom) was nominated last year but hasn't had a hearing because of a republican "blue slip" objection. That leaves three that have been "waiting in the wings" during Feinstein's absence in March. One, Jabari Wamble was nominated last September but the nomination never scheduled for a hearing -- that's on Durbin, not Feinstein. The other two (Brailsford and Crews) had hearings in late March and are on the agenda for a vote this coming Friday. Will they be approved? We'll find out on Friday.
The bottom line is that there are a variety of reasons that 13 nominees haven't had votes yet, ranging from their having been nominated too recently to have had a hearing yet (or stymied from having a hearing by a blue slip objection), questions about their ability to get the necessary Democratic votes on the senate floor and, maybe, but still to be determined, Feinstein's absence in Committee. We'll see how many of the nominees on the agenda for this Friday who haven't previously had a vote will be given one and will be advanced without Feinstein.
Those are the facts. As I said, the information is all publicly available.
edisdead
(1,881 posts)SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)I cant consider nominees in these circumstances because a tie vote is a losing vote in committee, Durbin said.
Asked if her absence has longer ramifications on the Democrats ability to confirm nominees, the Senate chairman said yes, of course it does, pointing to the long process of getting nominees scheduled for votes during precious floor time.
We still have some nominees left on the calendar that we can work on But we have more in the wings that we would like to process through the committee, Durbin said.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/10/politics/biden-judges-senate-blue-slips-absences/index.html
If he doesn't have 11 votes, Durbin doesn't bother scheduling a committee vote. He doesn't want good nominees voted down and have to start all over. He wants to hold back voting on a nominee until he has the votes to get that nominee out of committee. And right now he doesn't have the votes. We apparently still have a few nominees that got out of committee before Feinstein got sick, and those are being scheduled for Senate floor votes. But then after that, we've got nothing. The judicial nominee conveyor belt coming out of the Judicary Committee has come to a stop because of Feinstein's absence.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)Like the temporary replacement that Republicans object to, that too has never been done before, and would require 60 votes. Senators have always been replaced without issue when they resign or die in office, but not when they just choose to no longer sit on a committee, whether temporary or not.