Anonymous wrote:Feinstein is reminding me of RBG at the end. They both thought that they were more important than their ideals and hung on long enough to gravely damage what they believed in. If Feinstein does't step down before 2024, and Biden loses then she's helped cement a conservative judiciary just as much as RBG did by not resigning while Obama had the senate.

Old Jewish women are very stubborn

It’s from thousands of years of history

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feinstein is reminding me of RBG at the end. They both thought that they were more important than their ideals and hung on long enough to gravely damage what they believed in. If Feinstein does't step down before 2024, and Biden loses then she's helped cement a conservative judiciary just as much as RBG did by not resigning while Obama had the senate.

Disagree. You are basing this on your political beliefs. And, in that, you are correct.

But, RBG did her job and was alert.

When would you have had her resign? Obama's last nominee to the Supreme Court did not get put forward. Would you have had her resign in his first term?

Feinstein should not have run for the Senate this last time. Her staff has been running the show more than most staffs for a very long time.

I would have had RBG resign because she was already past 75 when Obama was inaugurated and she was the justice furtherest to the left. If she wanted her replacement to embody her views, she needed to step down under a democratic president who had a democratic senate. She held on too long and ended up being replaced by a 48 year old woman who could spend the next 30 years undoing her legacy

DP and I get it, I just don’t think it was as clear cut as the situation with Feinstein right now. Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment (although it probably shouldn’t be), RBG was mentally fit until the end, and there’s no guarantee that Obama could have gotten a nominee through a republican senate during his second term. Plus, most of the pundits were picking Clinton to win. In hindsight yeah, she should have stepped down but I don’t think it was as clear at the time, and she still almost made it through the trump years.

Does Feinstein even know what is going on or is her staff pulling all the strings (and not wanting to be out of their jobs)? This is partly on Schumer too because he never should have reappointed her to the judiciary committee.

We ended up with a literal handmaiden. I think it was fairly clear cut. I have no desire to shove women out of their jobs, especially women with great histories, but Feinstein is right now blocking a lot of the work we’ll rely on in the future. It’s really disgusting to see her do it.

She doesn't seem to have the mental capacities to realize she's doing it. Some of the articles coming out about her indicate that she's really unaware of her basic surroundings. But her own selfishness at choosing to run for another term in her 80s is preventing Democrats from appointing new judges.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/briefing/dianne-feinstein.html

Feinstein’s defenders are certainly correct that sexism plays a big role in American politics. But the biggest distinguishing feature of the current situation isn’t Feinstein’s sex. She is not the first female member of Congress to serve while old or ill. What makes this case different are the consequences.

No other aging member of Congress in decades, if not longer, has blocked one of his or her political party’s biggest priorities.

But Democrats do not seem to have a solution to their problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, from a ruthless politico standpoint, this could have been avoided. Bidenworld should have used his trip to campaign during the CA recall in 2021 as an opportunity to pull Newsom/Feinstein aside and figure out a preferred successor. Now Dems have borked themselves on federal judge appointees for the time being (which frankly, is the most substantial thing that can get done with a split Congress) AND due to the open seat in California, you have a race between two Dems sucking up donor money in a deep blue state when they're already going to be playing defense in 5 other races on the 2024 map.

According to FEC fundraising totals, $11 million over the past 3 months went to Schiff+Porter. We're still a year out from the CA primary. It's poor resource allocation. The former political finance consultant within me weeps.

It’s even worse because a) Newsom said at some point that if Feinstein resigned he would appoint a Black woman and b) it’s not just Porter and Schiff, Barbara Lee is also running, so if Newsom fulfills his promise he picks one of the three candidates running in the primary and bumps them up so they’re running as an incumbent. There are some good caretaker candidates like Jerry Brown or Barbara Boxer or my girl crush Jackie Speier but none of them are Black women.

Identity politics strikes again.
Will the Democrats ever learn?

Ketanji Brown Jackson has been a great justice. Kamala Harris, other than RWNJs hating her like crazy, has been fine.

You, on the other hand, will always be racist.

You haven't heard Brown in oral arguments. She is pretty limited and I am as ultra liberal Dem as they come. The only justices with legal skills are Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch.

Brown sounds pretty good to me. And expert court watchers don't agree with you.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/supreme-court-new-bench-with-ketanji-brown-jackson-justices-speaking-more-oral-arguments/
n the first three months of the 2022-23 term, the Supreme Court’s newest member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, was by far the most active participant in oral arguments, according to an analysis of the written transcripts for the 27 cases the court has heard so far.

Jackson has spoken, on average, nearly 1,350 words per argument. The court’s next most-talkative members — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch, in that order — each have spoken, on average, between 800 and 900 words per argument.

Jackson’s dynamic style is a marked contrast from her predecessor, Justice Stephen Breyer. Breyer himself was far from succinct, and he was famous for asking long, winding hypothetical questions. Jackson, in contrast, often uses her time to make substantive points about the case being argued. Perhaps the starkest example came in Merrill v. Milligan, in which she invoked originalism — an approach typically associated with the conservative justices — to argue that the 14th Amendment does not mandate colorblind policies. Her persuasive approach is consistent with the recent trend of the justices tending to use oral arguments, especially in the most divisive cases, less to gather information and more to air their own views.

Fatima Goss Graves, the president of the National Women’s Law Center, praised the “teaching quality” of Jackson’s questions, including “the deliberate way in which she explains and her level of preparedness.” Sherrilyn Ifill, a senior fellow at the Ford Foundation and a former president of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, described Jackson’s “signature style” as “sharp, focused questions, a mastery of the record, and upbeat but often devastating lines of investigation that leave little room for advocates to hedge or dissemble.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, from a ruthless politico standpoint, this could have been avoided. Bidenworld should have used his trip to campaign during the CA recall in 2021 as an opportunity to pull Newsom/Feinstein aside and figure out a preferred successor. Now Dems have borked themselves on federal judge appointees for the time being (which frankly, is the most substantial thing that can get done with a split Congress) AND due to the open seat in California, you have a race between two Dems sucking up donor money in a deep blue state when they're already going to be playing defense in 5 other races on the 2024 map.

According to FEC fundraising totals, $11 million over the past 3 months went to Schiff+Porter. We're still a year out from the CA primary. It's poor resource allocation. The former political finance consultant within me weeps.

It’s even worse because a) Newsom said at some point that if Feinstein resigned he would appoint a Black woman and b) it’s not just Porter and Schiff, Barbara Lee is also running, so if Newsom fulfills his promise he picks one of the three candidates running in the primary and bumps them up so they’re running as an incumbent. There are some good caretaker candidates like Jerry Brown or Barbara Boxer or my girl crush Jackie Speier but none of them are Black women.

Identity politics strikes again.
Will the Democrats ever learn?

Ketanji Brown Jackson has been a great justice. Kamala Harris, other than RWNJs hating her like crazy, has been fine.

You, on the other hand, will always be racist.

You haven't heard Brown in oral arguments. She is pretty limited and I am as ultra liberal Dem as they come. The only justices with legal skills are Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feinstein is reminding me of RBG at the end. They both thought that they were more important than their ideals and hung on long enough to gravely damage what they believed in. If Feinstein does't step down before 2024, and Biden loses then she's helped cement a conservative judiciary just as much as RBG did by not resigning while Obama had the senate.

Disagree. You are basing this on your political beliefs. And, in that, you are correct.

But, RBG did her job and was alert.

When would you have had her resign? Obama's last nominee to the Supreme Court did not get put forward. Would you have had her resign in his first term?

Feinstein should not have run for the Senate this last time. Her staff has been running the show more than most staffs for a very long time.

I would have had RBG resign because she was already past 75 when Obama was inaugurated and she was the justice furtherest to the left. If she wanted her replacement to embody her views, she needed to step down under a democratic president who had a democratic senate. She held on too long and ended up being replaced by a 48 year old woman who could spend the next 30 years undoing her legacy

but you're with an 80 year old president who says he'll run for reelection?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You ageist jerks! She needs to be allow the full amount of time to recover and then some.

I would feel exactly the same way if Jon Ossoff were screwing up the committee's business with an extended absence.

I’m the PP who revived this thread last week. There is an argument that this could be sexist/ageist because no Democrats were saying this about Fetterman who also took an extended absence from the judiciary committee, until he announced that he would be returning to work today. I still think she needs to go, though.

Or because Fetterman just got elected and his health was a major campaign issue. Dems would not look great doing a flip flop like that so soon after he entered the Senate.

Fetterman trying to run the committee hearings on SNAP today was painful to hear. He has an odd way of lifting his voice at the end of the sentence and stumbled over his words. In her Sunday NYT column, Maureen Dowd wrote about the gerontocracy that is governing the US. If people cannot do their job, they need to step aside and let competent people do the work. As someone upthread cited: Ruth Bader Ginsberg caused decades of problems for our country because of her arrogance. So are the people of both parties who will not step down.

Who says demented old people can hold high political office and even get re-elected?

Anonymous wrote:Not only will whoever replaces Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee (Ben Cardin) need 60 votes, but her replacement in the Senate IF SHE ACTUALLY RESIGNS will need 60 votes.

If only there was some way to change the rules of the senate! Guess dems won the senate for nothing …again. Can already hear them saying how important this next election. You have to vote democrat so we can control the senate…. and do nothing again.

Yeah! Moderate democrats are so great! Roe v. Wade gone, gun reform nothing, appointing judges no, reform SCOTUS no way, hold the coup leaders to account- no, etc. Go on Fox and talk about how bad the libs are - yes.

Not only will whoever replaces Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee (Ben Cardin) need 60 votes, but her replacement in the Senate IF SHE ACTUALLY RESIGNS will need 60 votes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feinstein is reminding me of RBG at the end. They both thought that they were more important than their ideals and hung on long enough to gravely damage what they believed in. If Feinstein does't step down before 2024, and Biden loses then she's helped cement a conservative judiciary just as much as RBG did by not resigning while Obama had the senate.

Disagree. You are basing this on your political beliefs. And, in that, you are correct.

But, RBG did her job and was alert.

When would you have had her resign? Obama's last nominee to the Supreme Court did not get put forward. Would you have had her resign in his first term?

Feinstein should not have run for the Senate this last time. Her staff has been running the show more than most staffs for a very long time.

I would have had RBG resign because she was already past 75 when Obama was inaugurated and she was the justice furtherest to the left. If she wanted her replacement to embody her views, she needed to step down under a democratic president who had a democratic senate. She held on too long and ended up being replaced by a 48 year old woman who could spend the next 30 years undoing her legacy

DP and I get it, I just don’t think it was as clear cut as the situation with Feinstein right now. Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment (although it probably shouldn’t be), RBG was mentally fit until the end, and there’s no guarantee that Obama could have gotten a nominee through a republican senate during his second term. Plus, most of the pundits were picking Clinton to win. In hindsight yeah, she should have stepped down but I don’t think it was as clear at the time, and she still almost made it through the trump years.

Does Feinstein even know what is going on or is her staff pulling all the strings (and not wanting to be out of their jobs)? This is partly on Schumer too because he never should have reappointed her to the judiciary committee.

We ended up with a literal handmaiden. I think it was fairly clear cut. I have no desire to shove women out of their jobs, especially women with great histories, but Feinstein is right now blocking a lot of the work we’ll rely on in the future. It’s really disgusting to see her do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feinstein is reminding me of RBG at the end. They both thought that they were more important than their ideals and hung on long enough to gravely damage what they believed in. If Feinstein does't step down before 2024, and Biden loses then she's helped cement a conservative judiciary just as much as RBG did by not resigning while Obama had the senate.

Disagree. You are basing this on your political beliefs. And, in that, you are correct.

But, RBG did her job and was alert.

When would you have had her resign? Obama's last nominee to the Supreme Court did not get put forward. Would you have had her resign in his first term?

Feinstein should not have run for the Senate this last time. Her staff has been running the show more than most staffs for a very long time.

I would have had RBG resign because she was already past 75 when Obama was inaugurated and she was the justice furtherest to the left. If she wanted her replacement to embody her views, she needed to step down under a democratic president who had a democratic senate. She held on too long and ended up being replaced by a 48 year old woman who could spend the next 30 years undoing her legacy

Plus, she had cancer twice! or three times? Octo- and nona-genarians should grasp that just because they can hang on to their high governmental perches doesn't mean they should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feinstein is reminding me of RBG at the end. They both thought that they were more important than their ideals and hung on long enough to gravely damage what they believed in. If Feinstein does't step down before 2024, and Biden loses then she's helped cement a conservative judiciary just as much as RBG did by not resigning while Obama had the senate.

Disagree. You are basing this on your political beliefs. And, in that, you are correct.

But, RBG did her job and was alert.

When would you have had her resign? Obama's last nominee to the Supreme Court did not get put forward. Would you have had her resign in his first term?

Feinstein should not have run for the Senate this last time. Her staff has been running the show more than most staffs for a very long time.

I would have had RBG resign because she was already past 75 when Obama was inaugurated and she was the justice furtherest to the left. If she wanted her replacement to embody her views, she needed to step down under a democratic president who had a democratic senate. She held on too long and ended up being replaced by a 48 year old woman who could spend the next 30 years undoing her legacy

DP and I get it, I just don’t think it was as clear cut as the situation with Feinstein right now. Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment (although it probably shouldn’t be), RBG was mentally fit until the end, and there’s no guarantee that Obama could have gotten a nominee through a republican senate during his second term. Plus, most of the pundits were picking Clinton to win. In hindsight yeah, she should have stepped down but I don’t think it was as clear at the time, and she still almost made it through the trump years.

Does Feinstein even know what is going on or is her staff pulling all the strings (and not wanting to be out of their jobs)? This is partly on Schumer too because he never should have reappointed her to the judiciary committee.

Biden has a window until 2024 to put judges with lifetime appointments on lower courts. If the democrats lose the senate in 2024, Biden is not getting another judge on any bench. If they lose the senate and the presidency, all vacancies are immediately getting filled with fed soc judges

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feinstein is reminding me of RBG at the end. They both thought that they were more important than their ideals and hung on long enough to gravely damage what they believed in. If Feinstein does't step down before 2024, and Biden loses then she's helped cement a conservative judiciary just as much as RBG did by not resigning while Obama had the senate.

Disagree. You are basing this on your political beliefs. And, in that, you are correct.

But, RBG did her job and was alert.

When would you have had her resign? Obama's last nominee to the Supreme Court did not get put forward. Would you have had her resign in his first term?

Feinstein should not have run for the Senate this last time. Her staff has been running the show more than most staffs for a very long time.

I would have had RBG resign because she was already past 75 when Obama was inaugurated and she was the justice furtherest to the left. If she wanted her replacement to embody her views, she needed to step down under a democratic president who had a democratic senate. She held on too long and ended up being replaced by a 48 year old woman who could spend the next 30 years undoing her legacy

DP and I get it, I just don’t think it was as clear cut as the situation with Feinstein right now. Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment (although it probably shouldn’t be), RBG was mentally fit until the end, and there’s no guarantee that Obama could have gotten a nominee through a republican senate during his second term. Plus, most of the pundits were picking Clinton to win. In hindsight yeah, she should have stepped down but I don’t think it was as clear at the time, and she still almost made it through the trump years.

Does Feinstein even know what is going on or is her staff pulling all the strings (and not wanting to be out of their jobs)? This is partly on Schumer too because he never should have reappointed her to the judiciary committee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feinstein is reminding me of RBG at the end. They both thought that they were more important than their ideals and hung on long enough to gravely damage what they believed in. If Feinstein does't step down before 2024, and Biden loses then she's helped cement a conservative judiciary just as much as RBG did by not resigning while Obama had the senate.

Disagree. You are basing this on your political beliefs. And, in that, you are correct.

But, RBG did her job and was alert.

When would you have had her resign? Obama's last nominee to the Supreme Court did not get put forward. Would you have had her resign in his first term?

Feinstein should not have run for the Senate this last time. Her staff has been running the show more than most staffs for a very long time.

I would have had RBG resign because she was already past 75 when Obama was inaugurated and she was the justice furtherest to the left. If she wanted her replacement to embody her views, she needed to step down under a democratic president who had a democratic senate. She held on too long and ended up being replaced by a 48 year old woman who could spend the next 30 years undoing her legacy

Anonymous wrote:Feinstein is reminding me of RBG at the end. They both thought that they were more important than their ideals and hung on long enough to gravely damage what they believed in. If Feinstein does't step down before 2024, and Biden loses then she's helped cement a conservative judiciary just as much as RBG did by not resigning while Obama had the senate.

Disagree. You are basing this on your political beliefs. And, in that, you are correct.

But, RBG did her job and was alert.

When would you have had her resign? Obama's last nominee to the Supreme Court did not get put forward. Would you have had her resign in his first term?

Feinstein should not have run for the Senate this last time. Her staff has been running the show more than most staffs for a very long time.