Final number of judicial nominations impeded by Dianne Feinstein's absence: 0

[bigtree]

Jennifer Bendery @jbendery 2h
NEW: Dianne Feinstein is heading back to D.C. today after a three-month absence, her office confirms.

She could be back at Senate votes as soon as tonight.

Matthew Chapman @fawfulfan 2h
So in other words: Dianne Feinstein will be back, and voting on judges in person, *long* before the Senate got through the backlog of already committee-approved judges awaiting a floor vote.

In other words, her absence will have had literally no impact on judges. None at all.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://rollcall.com/2023/05/09/feinstein-returning-to-the-senate/

[mcar]

1. Ro Khanna, et AL, should apologize to her

[RussBLib]

2. Well, let's see if she is "with it" or not

Hopefully she's still sharp.

[mcar]

3. No. Khanna, et al, should apologize to her

[Just A Box Of Rain]

24. Ro Khanna should apologize and many here on DU should do the same.

The attacks on a very well-respected Democratic Senator on a forum whose supposed purpose is to "support Democrats" have been shameful and over-the-top.

Welcome back Sen. Feinstein!

[mcar]

39. Yep

[JohnSJ]

47. +++

[GuppyGal]

54. +100000000000000000000000000000000000

[Hortensis]

56. :) Hold breath. But it's about her senate seat of course, not as much her.

Most of the leaders of that tiny faction (6% of all/12% of Dems/leaners -- anti-progressive left not included) have probably been having wet dreams for years, females included, about somehow snatching the golden ring of a U.S. senate seat away from the giant liberal Democratic mainstream-plus-other-Californians who prefer their senator farther right than Democrats want.

Of course things get tense as this heads toward climax, anxious for weaknesses to exploit to victory. Feinstein's illness itself falls in that category.

That said, this is DU and I agree with you. But it must be hard.

Welcome back to DC to the Senator.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

57. California Democrats, in the main, are very pragmatic and very liberal (not left-wing).

We like politicians who are progressives in the actual meaning of the word: People who help advance positive changes.

Feinstein is far more progressive than those who hound her from the extremes.

Her record of accomplishments is vast. She makes those with other agendas look bad, so out come the long knives. It won't work here in CA.

We go for work horses over show horses, and populism doesn't fly here.

[Hortensis]

64. +1000. Our progressives who vote for Democratic to-do lists

are the real thing, both mainstream and...more aspiring. You called it so well. Liberal Democrats are positive and goal directed, believers in using the power of government to advance society, and the relentlessly negative, ruthlessly destructive antagonisms of populism are antithetical in virtually every way. There can be no progressive achievements without an establishment to put to work producing them. Feinstein's record speaks for her.

Btw, for anyone interested here's Senator Feinstein's govtrack.us ideology score based on her 2022 voting record. I was looking at these for various people today.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/dianne_feinstein/300043

As for the various alt-left types who try to pass themselves as committed to progressivism to fool people into supporting them, but who have "other" anti-Democratic/anti-democratic agendas... Their own vaulting "great replacement" ambitions are for power they also always fail to achieve and aren't fit to handle if they did. Different breed of horse entirely, so to speak, not suitable for domestic use or breeding.

[edisdead]

10. What actually makes you and others say that?

What exactly are you basing this demand that she show you that her acumen is intact?

I am pretty much fed up reading this garbage on this forum.

[Nixie]

21. +1, the misinformation campaigns against good Democrats

isn’t subtle at all.

[Nixie]

19. She's sharp enough to see who was using misinformation

to attack her in an obvious ploy to grab her senate seat.

[2naSalit]

4. He's...

Working for Barbara Lee's campaign to replace her so I think he should cool his jets. I kind of liked him until he started in on that noise.

[mcar]

6. Agreed

[bigtree]

9. he's really not

...statement:

[edisdead]

11. That is very disappointing.

[mcar]

20. Ugh

[Nixie]

26. Giant fail

That is a very stupid and misinformed comment.

[Cha]

38. Yeah, shocking.

Hey Nixie!

[Nixie]

49. Hi Cha!

[Cha]

51. Always Good to See You!💙

[Nixie]

52. Thanks, and you too, Cha!

[BlueCheeseAgain]

32. Khanna is easily one of my least favorite Democrats.

Just seems to be not a nice person.

[Cha]

37. +1 TY, BCA

[onenote]

44. How did it hurt our agenda? And the "three months" was actually 30 days.

She missed votes from February 27 through March 2, from March 6 through March 9, from March 14 through March 16, March 21 through March 23, March 27 through March 30, April 17 through April 20, April 25 through April 27, May 1 through May 4 and, finally, today (May 9). Those are the only days during her absence in which the Senate was in session.

[JohnSJ]

48. Not surprised. Khanna is a political opportunist, and using republicans Thiel and Sax to help

those ambitions fits right into his personality

[Cha]

36. Yeah, but will they? hmmm

So grateful Sen Feinstein is coming back to the Senate.. That's the outcome I was hoping FOR

[mcar]

40. As we've seen here, they won't

I'm glad she is coming back too Cha.

[ecstatic]

58. My opinion has not changed. it's time to pass the torch. nt

[mcar]

59. You do understand that Rs will not approve her replacement on Judiciary, right?

Judiciary is one of those committees that require the whole Senate to approve a member. Do you really think that Moscow Mitch, et al, will approve a new member to that committee?

[ecstatic]

60. I believe they'd have no choice if Newsome appoints a replacement

or however it's done.

[mcar]

61. You are incorrect. 2 different things

If DiFi retires, Newsome appoints a replacement Senator. All good.

The Judiciary then has an opening. A D Senator would be put forward to fill that opening (not necessarily DiFi's replacement).

The full senate has to approve that person to fill the Judiciary open seat.

Rs would filibuster. The Judiciary would remain 10-10.

[ecstatic]

62. Thanks for explaining. nt

[mcar]

63. You are welcome

[Demsrule86]

5. Well Biden will veto a bad immigration bill that would have continued Trumps stupid wall...the

GOP has managed to get some shit through the Senate because of her absence.

[bigtree]

7. that makes a lie out of the claims that Sen. Feinstein allowed the bill to become law

...she no more allowed that with her absence than ANY other instance where republican legislation that squeaked through ran aground at the WH door.

The drama behind that sophistry should be embarassing to those who've lathered themselves in it.

[FBaggins]

8. Too early to say for sure... but it looks likely

A handful of nominees will have been delayed for a couple weeks in committee… but that wouldn’t stall final confirmation since there’s a backlog on the floor

[edisdead]

12. which ones?

I would love to see a list.

[bigtree]

13. this from April

...

Here are the Biden judges stalled in the Senate amid Feinstein’s absence
https://thehill.com/homenews/3959627-here-are-the-biden-judges-stalled-in-the-senate-by-feinsteins-absence/

[edisdead]

14. Non of those were stalled because of her

Literally not one of them.

[FBaggins]

15. The five that had committee votes delayed two or three weeks ago

They were up for a vote and the chairman had to hold them because she wasn’t there.

No real impact on final confirmation date if she’s really back… because they wouldn’t have received a floor vote for some time

[edisdead]

18. I presume the reason the linked article posted in another reply

I presume the reason the linked article posted in another reply used the word “amid” instead of “because” is because it is a crafty way to spin a bullshit talking point.

We are mow onto foggy possibilities if the would have been brought up to vote in committee knowing that they likely wouldn’t have received a full vote anyway….


This whole thing is such absolute garbage. It is wordsmithing a right wing talking poibt being played out here. Unreal.

[Hekate]

16. KnR

[TheProle]

17. Other important issues her absence endangered:

This is from a couple of weeks ago, but it illuminates other areas that her ongoing absence impacted:

Ref: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/feinsteins-absence-complicates-democrats-path-to-5-biden-goals

Debt Limit

Congress is facing a deadline in the coming months to either raise or suspend the federal government’s borrowing limit — or risk severe economic repercussions with an unprecedented federal default.

“Right now she says she’s going to return, let’s make sure that happens,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told ABC this week. “And it sure better happen before the debt-ceiling vote.”

Cabinet Confirmation

Democrats need to muster every vote they have to confirm Julie Su as Labor secretary to replace Marty Walsh. She has been facing fierce Republican and business opposition as moderate senators have been hesitant to endorse her.

Beating Back GOP Resolutions

Republicans have teed up over half a dozen measures overturning Biden administration regulations. They only require a simple majority to pass thanks to expedited procedures in the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

That means Democrats may face tight margins to halt measures that would force a Biden veto.

That’s most likely to happen on more partisan measures, like those blocking Biden from forgiving publicly-held student loans (H. J. Res. 45/S. J. Res. 22), implementing trucking emission standards (H. J. Res. 53/S. J. Res. 11), limiting qualifications barring undocumented immigrants that would designate them as “inadmissible” (S. J. Res. 18), and defining firearm stabilizing braces (H. J. Res. 44/S. J. Res. 20).

Thomas Ethics

A possible push by Judiciary Committee Democrats to subpoena Justice Clarence Thomas over recent ethics concerns is stalled with Feinstein out.

Judiciary Democrats met earlier this week and discussed their options. Republicans would almost assuredly vote in lockstep against a subpoena, and Feinstein’s absence would stall the vote, 10-10.

Appropriations

Feinstein as a senior appropriator would play a key role in government funding ahead of the Sept. 30 deadline.

Already, the Appropriations Committee has decided another Democrat will fill in as chair of her Energy and Water Development Subcommittee when it convenes for hearings, including one potentially next week. That’s a typical custom, usually when chairmen temporarily step out of an ongoing committee meeting.

But Democrats may need a full complement of committee members on hand when it comes to marking up those spending bills, which can be advanced to the floor with a simple majority. Spending bills markups are expected in late May, although in recent years those have not always occurred.

[mcar]

22. I imagine some things were held up while Sen. Fetterman

was receiving medical treatment. Odd, isn't it, that only the woman gets held to the "she should resign" standard?

[Fullduplexxx]

29. Fetterman is back to work isn't he ?

[mcar]

41. Yes, after several months off

their medical leaves crossed for some time. Your point?

[Fullduplexxx]

42. That he is back to work

[mcar]

43. And she is coming back to work

[Fullduplexxx]

46. Good

[bigtree]

25. this is pure bullshit

...none of that was actually imperiled, because the Senator is returning. The drama has been proven false.

I get that some of her critics, who either couldn't find the courage or the political sense to keep from demanding one of their own party's senior senators resign on the hilariously absurd prospect republicans would then seat a more progressive appointee on the committee, will certainly want to continue the farce to save face.

But they can't credibly continue point to things which never actually happened - bills which never became law and nominations that had zero chance of leapfrogging the backlog already on the floor.

That's why I believe we saw the flurry of claims the Senator was mentally impaired, to buttress against the certainty she would return.

Senate's business isn't static, it's a nebulous exercise in party politics, both internal and opposition. There are myriad more reasons for the state of legislation, and more threats to passage than the temporary absence of one Senator.

The only way to sustain this sophistry is this "what if" absurdity. But, woulda, shoulda, coulda is a hollow and disingenuous argument in the face of Senator Feinstein's return.

[onenote]

50. Meanwhile back in the real world

Debt Limit --- Have I missed something? Has there been a vote in the Senate on the Debt limit? Did Biden withdraw his threat to veto the Republican debt limit bill if it somehow is approved by the Senate?

Cabinet Confirmation -- Julie Su's nomination isn't in trouble because Feinstein has been absent. It's in trouble because several Senators (Kelly, Tester, Manchin, and Sinema) have expressed qualms about confirming her.

GOP Resolutions - Seven Congressional Review Act resolutions have passed the Senate. In six of the seven the margin was such that Feinstein's vote wouldn't have changed the outcome. In one instance, it would have resulted in a tie, but President Biden already has said he would veto that resolution if and when the House votes on it, just as he has vetoed two other resolutions and has threatened to veto others. So in the real world, Feinstein's absence hasn't resulted in any Congressional Review Act resolution becoming law.

Thomas Ethics -- It is far from clear that even with Feinstein, the Judiciary Committee will have the stomach to subpoena Thomas. Since she's supposed to be back tomorrow, we will see if that's the case soon enough.

Appropriations -- As noted, the Approps bills aren't scheduled to be marked up for several weeks, at earliest. So at this point in time, Feinstein's absence has not held them up.

[gratuitous]

23. Is it churlish to ask for some unpacking of that claim?

After all, Durbin didn't have any votes on judicial nominees because a tie vote in committee meant the nominee lost. There were a handful of nominees who attracted Republican support, but there were quite a number of nominees who weren't put to a committee vote because the vote would have been tied. Were those nominations "impeded"? I'd say yes. Was it due "solely" to Feinstein's absence? How about "mostly"? The use of "solely" in ringwiss's tweet seems calculated to me.

But of the nominees that were lined up for consideration, there simply isn't time on the Senate's calendar to go through the list, and Feinstein's prolonged absence is the major contributing factor for why those nominees didn't get a committee hearing and vote. Another major factor has been Durbin's slavish fealty to blue slips and Senate decorum when the the Republicans are conducting themselves in the civilized manner of the boys in Lord of the Flies.

[bigtree]

27. lot's to unpack in your own claims

...I'd prefer the Senator speak for herself on this:


Feinstein on Status of Judicial Confirmations
May 04 2023

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on the current status of judicial confirmations during her absence from the Senate while she recovers from shingles:

“The Senate continues to swiftly confirm highly qualified individuals to the federal judiciary, including seven more judicial nominees who were confirmed this week. There has been no slowdown.

“This includes the confirmation of Judge Wesley Hsu to the Central District of California. He will make an outstanding jurist and I’m proud to see him join the federal bench.

“While the Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced eight strong nominees during my absence, I’m disappointed that Republicans on the committee are blocking a few from moving forward. I’m confident that when I return to the Senate, we will be able to move the remaining qualified nominees out of committee quickly and to the Senate floor for a vote.”

Background

Click HERE to view the status of every federal district or circuit court nominee in the Senate during Senator Feinstein’s absence.

Claim: Senator Feinstein’s absence has brought the judicial confirmation process to a standstill.

Fact: The Senate Judiciary Committee continues to hold hearings on nominees and advance them out of committee, and the Senate continues to confirm judicial nominees on the floor.

Claim: The Senate is unable to confirm any judicial nominees because of Senator Feinstein’s absence.

Fact: The Senate has confirmed 21 district and circuit court nominees during Senator Feinstein’s absence, including seven this week.

Democrats maintain a 50-49 majority on the floor and are able to continue confirming judges with or without bipartisan support. During the last Congress, the Senate confirmed 97 judges while the Senate was split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans.

Claim: The Senate Judiciary Committee is deadlocked and unable to advance any judicial nominees to the floor without Senator Feinstein.

Fact: The committee has advanced eight district and circuit court nominees during Senator Feinstein’s absence.

Claim: There is a large backlog of nominees who are unable to advance out of the Senate Judiciary Committee due to Senator Feinstein’s absence.

Fact: Only four district or circuit court nominees are currently eligible for a vote in committee.

Three more nominees received a hearing last month but won’t be eligible for a committee vote until next week.

The remaining nine nominees pending in the committee have not received a hearing yet and won’t be eligible for a committee vote until mid- to late-June at the earliest depending on when their confirmation hearing is scheduled.

Senator Feinstein’s absence does not prevent the committee from holding a hearing on any nominees.

Claim: Judicial nominees are not moving to the floor fast enough.

Fact: There are 19 district and circuit court nominees waiting for a vote on the floor, compared to just four nominees waiting to advance out of committee.

If the Senate did nothing but confirm judicial nominees, it would likely take at least three weeks of floor time to confirm all of the judicial nominees currently pending on the floor.

[gratuitous]

30. Thank you

I'll take a look at that, but my original response was to the tweet in the original post, which claims that "The final number of judicial nominations whose confirmation was impeded solely by Dianne Feinstein’s absence: 0." I'm asking what the tweeter Ringwiss means by "impeded" and "solely" by Feinstein's absence.

[onenote]

45. Actual facts:

Twenty one nominees confirmed by the Senate during her absence. Hearings conducted on five nominees during her absence. (If you were familiar with committee practice you would know that hearings often are conducted with a bare minimum of members present -- In fact Durbin missed one of the hearing sessions during Feinstein's absence ). Feinstein was present and voting on February 16, but Durbin pulled all of the nominees that were on the Committee agenda that day. Eight judges were advanced by the Committee despite Feinstein's absence.

The major contributing factor to judges not being confirmed is that Schumer hasn't brought 19 nominations that have been approved by the Committee to the floor for a vote even though the Democrats have a majority without Feinstein's vote. A further contributing factor is that there are 40 vacancies for which President Biden hasn't nominated anyone. Of the 16 nominees that haven't been acted on by the Committee, four were nominated last week and haven't had a hearing yet, a few others were nominated in March or April and are waiting for a hearing. There are a few that have been held up by blue slip objections from Republicans. And there are a couple that have been held up because there are objections from Democrats (for example, Michael Delaney ).

There are seven nominees on the Committee agenda for Thursday. If, as has been reported, Feinstein is present for the meeting, it will be interesting to see whether all seven get votes and whether/when Schumer brings them to the floor.

[Tetrachloride]

28. When she gets back to the Judiciary Committee, my lead concerns are over.

The Senate Dem leaders could have been more forthcoming.

Senator Feinstein could have been more forthcoming.

[maxsolomon]

31. Feinstein could have gotten her Shingrix shots years ago, as well.

As Christine Pelosi alludes to.

This entire affair was avoidable.

[Tetrachloride]

34. +++. I got mine before i traveled overseas.

mild side effects.

[bigtree]

35. lol

...that's not what Christine said or 'alluded to.'

She actually made a non-political compliment on the Senator's recovering health. But I suppose people will politicize anything, as her mother remarked earlier, 'for some political motive.'

[maxsolomon]

55. I saw it as an allusion.

You don't. To each their own.

Did Feinstein get her Shingrix series? I doubt we'll ever learn.

[bigtree]

33. she should have just told that shingles infection she had more pressing concerns

...than the risk of reinfection, as well as the contagion possibility.

I daresay, her critics are responsible for their own furthering of the gaslighting and fearmongering from Politico and others who piled on than the recovering Senator.

I do agree that Durbin could have been more forthcoming that his own acceptance of republican blue slips will have been more of an actual hinderance to the advancement of nominees than Sen. Feinstein's temporary absense.

[GuppyGal]

53. When I heard this I thought of you.... #TrueBlue nt