Re: DiFi resigning - Rules of the Senate

[Fiendish Thingy]

There has been a lot of misinformation spread on DU about filling a vacancy on the Judiciary Committee should DiFi resign, or even step down temporarily.

https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate

In the appointment of the standing committees, or to fill vacancies thereon, the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, shall by resolution appoint the chairman of each such committee and the other members thereof. On demand of any Senator, a separate vote shall be had on the appointment of the chairman of any such committee and on the appointment of the other members thereof.

This means, that to fill a vacancy on the Judiciary committee, whether permanent or temporary, requires the approval of the full senate, which is subject to filibuster.

If DiFi resigns, whomever Newsom appoints to replace her does not automatically retain DiFi’s seat on the Judiciary Committee. The vacancy can only be filled via the approval of the whole senate. Changing the rule also requires the approval of the whole senate.

That is why I think DiFi should have resigned in December, before the current congress was seated. Under current circumstances, unless she returns to the committee, Republicans can block the confirmation of all judges for the remainder of Biden’s term, even if she resigns .

I hope this clarifies things for everyone.

[ripcord]

1. Don't go bringing facts into this

[Joinfortmill]

2. Sigh. It is what it is.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Indeed.

Could’ve been different, but it’s not.

[dsc]

4. But the agreement also contains the ratio of members by party

which, if Feinstein were to resign, would change. Wouldn't changing that ratio have to be voted on? It seems that Feinstein or the person holding Feinstein's seat would have right to be on that committee.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. No, it would not change

Currently, while she is absent, the ratio is 50/50. If she were to resign, the committee wouldn’t shrink, and eliminate a Republican member, there would simply be a vacant Democratic seat. If your theory were true, she could step down from the committee while she recovers, and there wouldn’t be all this hand wringing about blocking approval of her replacement.

If I’m wrong, feel free to post a link correcting me. I don’t see it in the rules I linked to.

[dsc]

24. If she were to quit then the ratio would change it would go from 11-10 our favor

to 10-10 tie. That is, by any measure, a change in the ratio.

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Her absence makes it a 10-10 tie right now.

That blocks confirmations now.

Until she returns, or if she resigns, it will stay at 10-10, as the Republicans don’t intend to approve a replacement.

That means if she resigns all future nominees are blocked. The ratio isn’t changed, as one democratic seat remains vacant. No vote is required, as Dems can name a replacement to the committee, who then has to be approved by the whole senate…which can be filibustered.

Your post implied that if she resigned, the ratio on the committee would have to change to reflect the Dems holding the majority, and nominees could once again pass out of committee to be confirmed by the full senate.

You appear to be thinking like a lawyer, when you should be thinking like a senator [/i ] .

[dsc]

28. I am actually saying the opposite

if she resigns that changes the ratio. I get that a temporary issue isn't a change in the ratio but a permanent resignation would be.

[Fiendish Thingy]

30. But it doesn't change the ratio in assigned seats, only seats currently occupied

That’s what I mean about the difference between thinking like a lawyer and thinking like a senator.

A lawyer would say “the rules say Dems must have 1 more seat than Republicans!”

A senator would say “The Dems do have one more seat than the Republicans, they just haven’t succeeded in filling it yet…”

[Mr.Bill]

31. It makes it a 10-10 present when they meet without her.

But the membership of the committee is still 11-10 because she holds that seat as long as she has a pulse. That's how I see it, anyway.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. The membership would be 11D-10R for the remainder of Biden's term, regardless

Unless the majority control of the senate somehow shifts to the R’s before January 3, 2025.

[elleng]

5. Thanks.

[WhiteTara]

7. Sounds like she needs to soldier on

and come back to DC and come into the Senate for necessary votes and go back to her abode there.

[Cha]

11. That's what I think.. TY White Tara

[Mr.Bill]

32. I'm sure she has quite a nice home in the DC area.

She wouldn't have to fly in for necessary votes if she didn't want to.

[Ahna KneeMoose]

8. Facts Be Best :: Thank You, Sincerely (n/t)

[onenote]

9. Did you know in December 2022 that she would contract shingles two months later?

She had a better attendance record the last nine months of 2022 than a lot of Senators -- there were nearly 300 votes and she missed two.

And if your point is that they could block the Democrats from getting an 11th member on the Committee, wouldn't it also mean that they could have blocked anyone the Democrats proposed as an 11th member of the Committee, even at the beginning of the session or at the end of last session?

If anything, it seems like your post makes the case for waiting to see if she recovers and can return to Washington in a month or two. Even Klobuchar seems to think that is the right approach.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. My point was logistical

If she had resigned in December, during the lame duck, then Schumer would have appointed a replacement to the committee at that time, who would have been seated on the Judiciary committee, as would have the rest of the senate committee members, in January, without any obstruction by the GOP.

[Cha]

14. Yes that would have been great.. If

Only!

[inthewind21]

17. If I had only

picked different numbers, I would have won the lottery!. If only frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts!

[ProfessorPlum]

19. oh come on

she was already showing signs of dementia and was way past her efficacy even months before that. Democrats just aren't thinking strategically about their resignations and their timing.

[onenote]

39. Still not following.

If she had resigned in December, the Judiciary Committee would have had 11 Republicans and only 10 Democrats. Under those circumstances, why would the Republicans have gone along with Schumer naming a replacement if they could block him from doing so? Indeed, if the Republicans have the power under the Senate rules to force a vote on any individual assignment to a Committee, what would stop them from preventing the Committee from having a full complement of Democrats from the get-go?

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. Yes, you're not following

If she resigned in December, then Newsom would have named a replacement, who would have been sworn in. That replacement wouldn’t have been seated on any committees until January 3 , when the rest of the senate convened for the start of the new congress, and voted on the rules and committee assignments. The replacement might not have been assigned to the Judiciary Committee, someone more senior might have been appointed.

The point is, if the replacement had been in office before January 3 when the new congress convened, the rules and committee assignments would have approved by unanimous consent (which they were), and the Republicans couldn’t block filling the Judiciary committee seat.

[onenote]

47. Thanks. That helps me understand your post.

I still don't see why Feinstein would have stepped down in December given that she had no reason to think at that time that she'd get shingles and be unavailable. She ran for a six year term in 2018 and I think its a fair assumption that she expected to serve all six years and continued to have that expectation at the end of 2022.

[Cha]

10. TY.. I had previously read

here in some posts that the Dems needed 60 Votes to Confirm another Dem to replace Sen Feinstein.

That seems bizarre to expect every Sen to agree on a new Senator for the Foreign Com!

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. They don't need 60 votes to seat a replacement senator in the senate itself

But they do need 60 votes to seat a replacement on the judiciary committee, which is why her resignation would not solve the problem of confirming judges.

[Cha]

16. Right.. TY

[inthewind21]

18. Civics

It's a great tool!

[Hortensis]

15. Possibilities: Feinstein stays and works. Feinstein resigns, new senator appointed

by Newsom, but not allowed to fill Feinstein's committee assignments. Feinstein doesn't resign but is unable to fulfill her duties adequately.

OR, a temporary replacement senator is approved by vote of the senate to take over her committee assignments, chosen from among her colleagues by agreement between Democratic and sufficient number of Republican senators. Presumably ending when Feinstein declares herself ready to resume her duties and does?

Thanks for the OP, Fiendish.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. GOP has already nixed the temporary option. Nt

[Hortensis]

23. Hmm, not quite. They've nixed the temporary option where Democrats

choose the temporary. Remember, senators are supposed to make deals for a living, and even these days they still do. My best guess is things aren't bad enough to force us to the table now, but I know nothing.

Whatever. The more needy that Democrats might conceivably become, the more leverage Republicans would have. The less needy, of course, the opposite. This whole issue becomes mostly forgotten if Feinstein's able to return to work as needed. But it could arise again over the next year and a half.

[bigtree]

20. she was diagnosed and hospitalized with shingles in FEBRUARY

...what you may be referring to is the internet diagnosis of mental illness, which the Senator properly ignored.

What other reason, except for the unfounded reports of dementia or worse, should she have resigned for?

Are you saying she should have foreseen this illlness in December, and presaged the unprecedented calls for her to resign because some republicans have said something?

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. The reports of dementia aren't unfounded

Unconfirmed perhaps, but not unfounded.

[bigtree]

26. they absolutely are

...they are unnamed 'sources' cited. ZERO direct quotes claiming it in the clickbait articles.

All of them denied by her office.

More importantly, there have been responses from the former Speaker (California Rep. Pelosi) which characterized those reports as "unconscionable," "ridiculous," and sexist duplicity.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Alex Padilla, the junior senator from California, disputed the report, telling the paper that she is continuing to execute her responsibilities, calling suggestions about her mental acuity “unconscionable” and “ridiculous.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/report-dianne-feinstein-memory-rapidly-deteriorating

...I'll take the word of her NAMED colleagues and the Senator herself over clickbait articles with unnamed accusers.

It's really despicable using self-serving news reports' anonymous sources to attack the Senator. And, yes, this is an unfounded attack, unless you believe anonymous critics and opportunistic reporters and their anecdotal bullshit.

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. Not unfounded, just unconfirmed.

Her office announced her retirement, and later that day, she denied any announcement had been made in a hallway interview at the Capitol, and appeared confused and befuddled when a staffer corrected her in front of the reporters.

Lots of things in Washington are reported by reputable journalists using multiple anonymous sources for corroboration. The existence of these reports, and the public evidence of Feinstein’s confusion, proves these reports of her cognitive decline are not unfounded, but a formal diagnosis remains unconfirmed.

This is way different from RW yahoos smearing Biden with ageist slurs- Biden is in the public eye constantly, demonstrating his cognitive functioning, and no one is speaking anonymously to reporters about any signs of dementia seen in private.

We will have to agree to disagree.

[bigtree]

33. I read that account and it wasn't a clear as you say

...she appeared unaware that her office had put out the official statement.

That could mean anything, likely a staffer error.

All the Senators rely on staff to fill out their busy schedule, and this is a canard, unless you think the former speaker is a liar.

This isn't even a cursory diagnosis to just point to instances where she forgot or was mistaken about something. That's just a smear. It isn't provable fact. It's not even credible rumor, because it has ZERO of these supposed staffers' names attached.

But you and others seem to believe it's your mission to present these anonymous sourced accusations, in a political effort to denigrate the Senator, as fact. They're just not provable facts. You can disagree all you want, but can't turn anonymous claims into fact just by repeating them over and over.

Go on. Tell us Nancy Pelosi is a liar.

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. I saw the video, it was quite impactful.

If it was an error by staffers, I would expect a clarification to have been issued, AFAIK, one hasn’t.

This isn't even a cursory diagnosis to just point to instances where she forgot or was mistaken about something. That's just a smear. It isn't provable fact. It's not even credible rumor, because it has ZERO of these supposed staffers' names attached.

It’s a corroborated report, from fellow senators, and journalists from the New Yorker and New York magazine.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/report-dianne-feinstein-memory-rapidly-deteriorating

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/dianne-feinstein-senate-17079487.php

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/1104843151/senator-dianne-feinstein-cognitive-health-continues-to-raise-concerns-traister

The fact that these mainstream media outlets ran the stories means while unconfirmed by a formal diagnosis, these reports are not unfounded, that is, they aren’t completely without merit. These media outlets aren’t click bait rumour mongers, and have editors and lawyers to ensure they don’t commit libel.

[bigtree]

36. you can get a lot of those clips from any aged person.

...you can opinionate, but you don't have facts here that prove anything more than an awkward misunderstanding.

It doesn't mean she's incompetent, or mentally incompetent, or any of the other pathetic excuses for diagnoses the internet has come up with.

You want to present this as fact, but it just isn't.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. I'm not claiming anything is a proven fact

I am saying there have been credible, corroborated reports that, while not establishing a confirmed diagnosis, do indicate something is there worth reporting.

Certainly more than enough to refute any claims that the story is “unfounded”.

That’s my opinion, as well as the opinion of NPR, The SF Chronicle, Vanity Fair, NYT and numerous other reputable media outlets.

No responsible person is saying it has been proven that Feinstein has dementia, but they are saying there is enough information to report on concerns about her cognitive functioning.

It’s clear we don’t see eye to eye on this, and won’t change each other’s minds, so I’m not sure what more is to be said.

We do seem to agree that the only way that the senate can confirm more of Biden’s judicial nominees is for Feinstein to return to her role on the judiciary committee.

[bigtree]

38. anonymous, unnamed accounts aren't corroboration

...they just aren't.

Those anonymous quotes need names for them to be corroborated. Otherwise it's just the word of the reporter (and the cowardly word of whatever weasel is stabbing the Senator in the back).

[Fiendish Thingy]

40. Where have you been the past 50 years?

Anonymous sources have been used by credible reporters at reputable news outlets at least as far back as Watergate.

The important part is getting more than one source on the record to corroborate the story, which in this case has been done.

I recommend watching “All The President’s Men” for a dramatization of how using anonymous sources works. ( Unless, of course, you think Woodward and Bernstein were just speaking to cowardly weasels who just wanted to stab Nixon in the back).

[bigtree]

42. like I said, it's the word of a Politico reporter

...and whoever the weasel is that's stabbing our Democratic senator in the back.

Equating cowards, who can't find their way to repeat these slanderous attacks in person, with Woodward and Bernstein is sophistry.

Btw, Woodward lost credibility with me after his Casey reporting, with his loose narrative style that has entire conversations based on what he says is his understanding of what he was told, instead of actual direct quotes. The same type of gossipy reporting which intends to defame or impune with second-hand accounts, or worse.

Corroboration means, to make more certain; confirm. There is no independent confirmation of these individual, unnamed accounts reported. That there are several compiled in a handful of publications, and repeated over and over in others, isn't corroboration. That's rumormongering.

[Fiendish Thingy]

43. Then you must reject most current reporting these days

Because using anonymous sourcing is common practice in Washington DC.

Reporting information compiled from two or more sources, anonymous or not, is the very definition of corroboration.

In this case, multiple reporters sourced information from multiple “weasels”, including multiple sitting Democratic US senators, to corroborate the story.

https://newsliteracymatters.com/2021/04/26/q-can-we-trust-a-story-with-anonymous-sources/

https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/telling-the-story/anonymous-sources

Under AP's rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:

1. The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the report.

2. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.

3. The source is reliable, and in a position to have direct knowledge of the information.

https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/handling-sources

Yes, Politico has come under criticism for over use of anonymous sources:

https://www.imediaethics.org/11-examples-of-politicos-addiction-to-anonymous-sources-journalisms-crack-cocaine/

But, in this case, Politico’s initial reporting was followed up with additional original reporting by other outlets and carried by NYT, Vanity Fair, SF Chronicle, NPR, and the New Yorker.

At what point do you acknowledge that a story based on anonymous sources (which were especially commonplace during the Trump administration) isn’t “rumour mongering”?

P.S. I would think Woodward might have partially redeemed himself with his use of taped interviews in his Trump books.

As I said before, we’re not going to change each others minds; for some reason, this particular anonymously sourced story, unlike a multitude of others, has got you riled up-if you wish to continue screaming “rumour mongering” into the void, be my guest.

[bigtree]

44. I do. Did I not make that clear?

Last edited Wed Apr 19, 2023, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

...Woodward and Bernstein's articles were just accusations without the later corroboration.

That's all you've presented against Sen. Feinstein.

[Justice]

27. This should be the only thread on this topic as it is the only correct thread.

Thank you.

[MrsCoffee]

45. Feinstein deserves the opportunity to make a full recovery before being jostled out of office.

The same opportunity given to other Democrats. Fetterman missed 53 of 64 votes in February and March. He suffered a stroke and had mental health issues. He has received the exact opposite treatment.

If Feinstein is still having complications at the three month mark, it’s quite possible that it won’t get better. Until then, I’m a bit disgusted at using this opportunity to voice full throttled attacks questioning the motives and mental status of one of our longest sitting Democrats.

[Fiendish Thingy]

46. I agree, but there is one significant distinction between Feinstein and Fetterman

She sits on the judiciary committee, and he doesn’t.

Fetterman’s absence doesn’t impact the confirmation of dozens of judges.

[MrsCoffee]

48. All the more reason for a little patience.

Attacking her changes nothing. It's just chum for the magats.

Calling for her resignation with assumptions that she is mentally or physically unable to do her job is not something that should be made a priority right now. I think it would be more appropriate to wish her a full recovery and return to office as soon as she can travel. If a time comes that a medical professional deems her unfit, then we will have to cross that bridge. Until then, we really need to quit eating our own.

[Fiendish Thingy]

49. As I said before, her return to the judiciary committee is the only viable option at this point.

If she chose to resign, the time would have been before January 3, 2023. Since she didn’t make that choice, the only way to get judges confirmed for the rest of Biden’s term is for her to return to her duties on the judiciary committee.

I don’t believe Democrats should be immune from criticism, but on this particular issue, because of the ramifications for confirming judges, the issue is largely moot.

[MrsCoffee]

50. Criticism is one thing.

Questioning their motives and mental health prematurely seems more like absurd speculation than criticism.