Progressive group: Feinstein must step down as top Democrat on Judiciary panel
Category: News & Politics
Via: texan1211 • 4 years ago • 98 commentsBy: Jordain Carney 3 hrs ago (MSN)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Progressive group: Feinstein must step down as top Democrat on Judiciary panel© Greg Nash Progressive group: Feinstein must step down as top Democrat on Judiciary panel
Demand Justice, a progressive outside group, is calling for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) to step down as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the wake of Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings.
"It's time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If she won't, her colleagues need to intervene," said Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice.
Fallon added that Feinstein had "undercut Democrats' position at every step of this process."
"If Senate Democrats are going to get their act together on the courts going forward, they cannot be led by someone who treats Sunrise activists with contempt and the Republican theft of a Supreme Court seat with kid gloves," he said.
Feinstein, 87, has long been a target of progressive ire, but the warning signs from activists are ramping up as it appears increasingly likely that Democrats could win back the Senate majority in November. Feinstein, as the top Democrat on the panel, is in line to become the chair.
She's signaled opposition to nixing the legislative filibuster if Democrats retake the majority in November. Supporters of getting rid of the 60-vote procedural hurdle argue that it stands in the way of the party's major policy goals.
She also drew fierce scrutiny for her handling of decades-old sexual assault allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Feinstein's office had a letter detailing the allegation from Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh for months before turning it over to the FBI. Feinstein defended the decision at the time saying she was asked to keep the allegations confidential.
Feinstein faced renewed criticism this week because of her treatment of Barrett, with progressives frustrated because they believe Democrats failed to underline the stakes. Republicans, if they confirm Barrett, will set a record for the closest to a presidential election that a Supreme Court nominee has been approved.
Barrett's nomination also comes four years after Republicans refused to give then-President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, a hearing or a vote. Republicans argue that the fact that they now control both the White House and the Senate is a significant distinction.
Fallon, in his statement, alluded to remarks that Feinstein made at the end of the hearings for Barrett's nomination on Thursday.
Feinstein thanked Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is in a tough reelection battle, for how he ran Barrett's hearing.
"This has been one of the best Senate hearings I have participated in. Thank you for your fairness and opportunity of going back and forth. It leaves one with a lot of hopes," Feinstein said.
Feinstein was also spotted hugging Graham after the hearing. Feinstein's comments were quickly circulated by Senate Republicans.
Fallon isn't the only progressive who has voiced frustration with Feinstein's handling of Barrett's hearing.
Adam Jentleson, a staffer for former Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), warned that Feinstein, if Democrats retake the majority, would "oversee all judicial confirmations (she wants to reinstitute blue slips, giving Rs veto power) plus civil rights, statehood etc."
"The decision will be made by Senate leaders soon after the election," he tweeted.
Spokespeople for Feinstein didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the statement from Demand Justice.
Though Feinstein complimented Graham at the end of the hearing on Thursday, she was also critical of the decision by Republicans to move Barrett's nomination earlier during a heated business meeting.
"This is being done without any precedent in the time at least that I've been on this committee," Feinstein said of the GOP decision to confirm Barrett days before the Nov. 3 election. "It's being done I guess to show power and push someone through."
She also wasn't the only Democrat on the committee to compliment Graham for the overall tone of the hearings, which were significantly less contentious than the battle over Kavanaugh.
Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Senate Democrat, told Graham at the end of Wednesday's hearing, that he wanted to thank him "for your fairness in this hearing."
"I've heard no objection nor will I about the way you've conducted this. You've given everyone a chance to express themselves," Durbin said.
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours.
Tags
Who is online
45 visitors
The left wing lunatics will continue to push the Democratic Party ever further to the left.
One day there will be no such thing as a "moderate" Democrat.
Almost all of the former "moderate" Republicans are now Democrats or have given up their Republican Party affiliation. Many former "conservative" Republicans have also left the Party. Most of what's remaining in the Republican Party are right wing lunatics, and they are so far right they already went over the edge.
This article is not about Republicans.
There are other articles for you to vent on.
Please try to stay on topic on this article.
Thank you.
So what?
[deleted]
Hmmm. Apparently, you did...
Now now G3, stay on topic.
Hmmm. Reagan, still right after all these years.....
And regarding them, he always will be.
Very, very far right.
If Reagan was very, very far right to you, perhaps it is time to update your standards.
And Reagan was CORRECT, if that pleases you more.
Perhaps it's time for you to develop some reasonable and realistic standards.
Today's Republican Party is so extreme right wing that most current Republicans would consider Reagan a liberal.
Reagan was, with possibly one or two exceptions, INCORRECT about almost everything, from his assertion that Medicare would "lead to the destruction of our freedom", to his awful reign as Governor of California, to his elitist, plutocratic Presidency.
well, tell you what, don't vote for Reagan, then!
You can write him in. Hogan did!
I never vote for dead people, and don't like dead people voting, either.
Trump's candidacy is on life support. He's brain dead but barely breathing. Come Nov. 3rd, DOA.
and??????
Yup, It shows!
Here's what we can say about Trump: "He's simply a hole in the air."
And if Biden can't take tough questions he can't protect suburban women!
Suburban women don't need a lying, cheating, two-faced, thief who can't protect himself without a 'cloud' of handlers!
Good points all!
Suz, I won't 'taunt' you. Have a nice day. (Smile.)
Okay- why is any of this here?
Oh I get it.
One shows an awareness of a pandemic and the other shows a super spreader event
That day is actually already here.
It shows how batshit crazy they are.. They talk about Trump wrecking norms but a simple act of politness is now grounds to lose your job.
IF you ever want to know what talking to a Stalin true believer is like listen to these pyschopaths.
A Trump supporter who can't tell when Donald is telling the truth is talking about "batshit crazy" norms? Okay let's test the theory of the case:
Sean Treacy, can you tell me how I can know Donald Trump is telling the truth when he tweets and speaks daily?
This isn't about Trump.
@2. I responded to Sean Treacy,
"It shows how batshit crazy they are.. They talk about Trump wrecking norms but a simple act of politness is now grounds to lose your job."
So I asked him to explain how "batshit crazy norms" work in and of his worldview.
Thank you, I had already read the post and no synapsis was required.
Thanks, though.
You're Welcome!
That is exactly what they are. You nailed it!
Dianne Feinstein is 87 years old. I dont care whether or not she is nice to Barrett, it is immaterial. But Feinstein looks and to some extent sounds like she should retire.
Will the far left primary her?
If she chooses to run again?
It seems like more than a handful are tired of her and want some fresh, new, aggressive, progressive, malleable blood in there.
She's 87 years old. It doesnt have to be about anything other than that. She doesnt need a job. She and her husband are well off financially.
We'll see if she holds the position soon enough.
But it is undeniable that some want her gone.
I love Madame Feinstein, however three years from 90 is outdated. It is time for the states (all of them) to consider not letting popularity and seniority be its own reward. Will such great modern healthcare people are living longer, but on the other hand, it speaks to the strong possibility of a rash of circumstance of finding politicians deceased at their 'desks' soon enough!
Sounds like a strange thing to me that if that is what voters want, why change it because you don't like it?
Don't overwork it, Texan. It's okay. Use it or lose it.
Oh, sorry.
I should know better than to expect what voters want opposed to what the Party wants would win out.
Did what conservative voters want split the Republican party down the middle or into fragments? Curious. Do you think the republican party is whole?
Why deflect?
You do realize we were talking about Democrats, right?
I responded to your: "I should know better than to expect what voters want opposed to what the Party wants would win out." Were you deflecting when you wrote it? Senator Feinstein is very old and the 'fire in her belly' may have gracefully dimmed. It is okay, still she is not on the committee as vice-chair to make Lindsey or Amy Barrett feel better about their exploitative use of undiluted political power! Hope that clarifies.
The "Party" I referred to in my post was the Democratic Party. Did you honestly think I was referring to the Republican Party?
I hope you understand what i wrote now.
So you are censoring speech? And determining what is a deflection based on a set parameter of separability that exact opposites must not participate? That is too find a distinction; is it allowed on NewsTalkers?
They primaried her two years ago and with the California system the two of them faced off in the general election and she wiped the floor with the proglib. She won’t face re-election for four years when she will be 91 years old
No, just asking you to stay on topic and stop deflecting.
If the seeded article talks about Democrats and Democratic groups, why deflect to Republicans?
Don't know, don't care, just want you to stay on topic and stop deflecting.
Yeah. I care. This causes the effect to be partisan for partisan sake. No thank you. If I have anything more to say; it will be positive for democrats and not to viciously tear the party down!
well, once you start talking about Democrats, at least you will be on topic.
yay!
She is 87, she needed to retire 20 years ago. See my comment below.
ACB received the ABA's highest rating.
They make that rating based on evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional
competence, and judicial temperament.
You can say she is unqualified, but it would be an already-proven lie.
Democrats are only objecting as a political ploy.
It just won't work, however.
She will be confirmed, and the best part is, she is only 48 years old.
She might be there for 40 years.
But, God. The best laid plans of men and many can be putty in the hands of a 'craft-maker.'
Don't be so cryptic.
Say plainly what you mean, please.
I did. It's a God 'thing.' No worries, there.
No problem.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CGXY7OCFnc_/?igshid=1xiqh5i2vqjkp
Sorry! No 'thumbs.' Can see it: Help! Post it here for me. Thanks "Maga"!
These hearings are totally pointless.
I agree. They're just going to ram her through no matter what.
There needs to be term limits on SCOTUS judges, ten years possibly, not a lifetime appointment. I think that's absurd.
if ram her through means to hold hearings and then a vote, well, then yeah. I guess they are "ramming" her through!
all perfectly legal and aboveboard!
I was thinking the same thing when I was listening to Senators campaigning!
Anyone with any common sense and brains would have come to the same conclusion.
when Ginsburg died and someone realized that Trump would replace her. That's when all these folks got religion over it.
And that is all the "hearings" were, senatorial campaigns. Such a fucking waste of everyone's time. She is going to be confirmed, that was made clear even before the "hearings" (again, what is the point?). It was 4 days of senators jerking off and Barrett pretending that she was born yesterday and knows nothing of this Earth and its strange customs.
HA! Your 'work' here: PRICELESS!
Get two thirds of both houses or the states to pass it and then get 3/4 of the states to ratify it and you can see the constitution amended to reflect that!
So Ginsburg should have been out in ten years and replaced by Bush 43 instead? That is the progressives reasoning here!
math is funny like that... LOL
That is the "funny" thing about judges. They are supposed to be above politics, but they are installed by a running list of politicians. And then there is the communities behind, back "home" backing up the politicians. Everybody wants some "skin" off the judges for their little niche worldview!
The question I can not phantom is this:
Which is harder on the court placement process: The politicians who place the judges or the people back home who placed the politicians!
She disagrees and yet she's civil. Nothing wrong with that.
No there is not. And yet the progressives want to dump and replace her because unlike them she is still a decent and civil human being.
Look, our government has a serious problem with age, the motherfuckers in charge are WAY too old. My mother (63) has said the same thing to me on numerous occasions. I mean jesus christ, an 87 year old is in line to hold a prominent position in congress?! What the fuck? This always makes me think back to when the government was trying to get Apple to write a program to break the security locks on (maybe the Boston Bomber's?) IPhone, and reps from Apple had to sit their and explain in child-like terms why they didn't want to do this and why it was dangerous. The inability of our senior political leadership to grasp a concept as basic as "if we create it, it exists, and is a potential security threat to billions of people and devices" was astonishing.
We need a cross section of representation in government, otherwise we will fall into the same trap the Soviet Union did where in the 1980s their senior leadership was still operating like it was the 1950s.
I am inclined to listen to this argument. Medical is making us some good retirement age folks who need to get on with their lives. While I don't know wht a good cut-off age is for a thinking, vibrant, "with it" person is, I can safely say that some in congress need to practice humility and leave the 'fanfare' on a high before having the stool kicked over in their spot!
I love me some Dianne Feinstein, but to be fair - where did the time go? It snicked by me that she has crept up on rounding up to 90! Dearie me! Diane, Dianne, Dianne - give the youth a break.
ASIDE: Hey Queen Elizabeth! Abdicate! Give that aging 'boy' of yours a chance to feel the reins of English power 'for real.'
It is tricky... I mean you can someone who is mentally sharp until the end, but also have someone who is'nt entirely sure where they are to begin with.
I hear you loud and clear. It is 'complicated.' But then being a 'fossil' or 'dinosaur' at work is not conducive to the joy of life or advancing progress. I mean Lindsey Graham is sticking a fork in the democrats on the committee to see if they are 'done' or need 'turning over' and more 'browning'! And my lovely senator is crowing about the beauty of efficiency and articulations!
Girl 'Stein! Lindsey is letting you and the democrats have it! Up close and personal. You betta know that!
On a separate note: There are a few other fossils and dinos roaming around Washington, D.C like Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont) who I have my eye on for 'wipe out'. That senator has been in the body since 1975 and he was ineffective in his questioning of a 'newbie' like Barrett to the process of selection questioning. Barrett overruled the esteemed "mature" senator. Leahy sputtered through his time. And this is not the only time I have watch him 'choke' since Trump has been in charge.
You know what that tells me, Thrawn' - what is Leahy accomplishing in the process arena when we don't see him performing his duties? If what is on display is his best?
We needed someone to interview this candidate and blow through her stifling defenses. I am disgusted with this pretense. Trump conservatives in the senate are not playing nice, they come with verbal knives, cudgels, and bayonets drawn to take all that power affords them.
No more "Mr. and Mrs." Nice need attend me.
Lastly, I love me some Justice Ruth Ginsberg, but I felt in my bones (and in my heart) that she had made a critical blunder not to take Obama's out from the high court! So she accepted the fame that came her way. I won't begrudge her that. In the end, "look what she done—did." The republicans/conservatives are singing her 'praise' as they get to work bringing in new 'scaffolding" to bring it all down!
Biden fits your last sentence perfectly
You know that she like so many simply assumed Hillary was going to win and she could retire in 2019 and let our first woman President name her replacement...
That's true, the story goes. I agree with you. However, we are now reaping the whirlwind, because of an unforced misstep. Justice Ginsberg gave her all and I know this. And I am grateful for her service and her life. However, as I remarked, her age was an issue for me and her health (pancreatic cancer remission - a grave situation) was not the greatest during the Obama terms.
In that picture above, I would have loved to see my dear Ms. Feinstein fade out on camera pouring that sanitizer over Lindsey's head! /s
(But, that is just me. Today, I am 'that guy.')
Not necessarily true. Nineteen times in history a president has attempted to fill a SC vacancy while his party controlled the Senate in an election year, and in every one of those times except one the nomination was confirmed. Of those 19, nine were actually nominated after the election in a lame duck session, and all were confirmed, including some high profile SC justices .
So ACB being confirmed anytime between now and the end of Trumps first term would not be all that unusual.
I think Feinstein realizes that, and that ACB is a good candidate with more than adequate qualifications, and some folks simply don't like that.
I am glad you mention it is an opinion as to what my senator, Diane Feinstein, is thinking, because I exchange emails to and from her office and she has not informed me of anything about the hearings! To be clear, she and I are not 'tight' in any sense of the word. I just write her my thoughts and positions, and to her credit her office rapidly replies with a focused set of ideas and thoughts. It's not a big deal, nevertheless.
I am not against "ACB" as you call her, but it does piss me off that fairness in the age of Trump takes a backseat to abruptness, coldness, and cut-throat proceedings. Someone 'choking the political life out of you with a smile on his or her face—is still causing you to black out—permanently. We can not applaud a woman who knows she is a "shoe-in" to a judgeship simply because the committee numbers and the senate numbers are in her favor and so she sits there playing "the game" —with our lives. If you determine that is some kind of projection or "both sides" thing, well I suggest conservatives get a life. Liberals and secularist don't really give a damn how you live your private and public lives as long as its legal and not bothering "us." Now can conservatives "both-sides" that?
I can't, and I am not that stupid to play stupid here.
What in God's name are you talking about? Did you watch any of the confirmation hearings? Do you really think anyone would want to sit there at the center of all that posturing and political pea-cocking, especially someone who's life's profession is to be impartial, non-political, and make judgements based solely on the rule of law (the Constitution in the case of a SC justice)? It has to be frustrating as hell for someone who is truly qualified for the job. Did you say the same thing about any other justice who was nominated and weathered the confirmation process with a Democratic President and Senate majority?
What "game" are you referring to? The Constitutional game of a president making a nomination and the Senate confirming it? If you read my post above you would know that "the game" isn't being played any differently now than it was 19 other times in history when the President and the Senate majority were of the same party and a vacancy came up in an election year. And yes this has worked to both party's benefit over those many years, so it is most definitely a "both sides thing".
This political animus, and push to seat as many federal judges as possible started when FDR tried to pack the court in the late 30's to cram through his New Deal. Although he failed at that, he did nominate and the senate confirmed nine (9) SC justices during his presidency. The number of Federal court appointments has been growing considerably since then with every President. President Obama made 328 total appointments including 2 confirmed to the Supreme Court. Do you think he made those choices with any less of an eye on ideological court stacking than any of the Republican or Democratic presidents before him? Either be upset with the whole idea of court stacking, and call out both parties, or your argument fails to achieve any sort of higher moral ground, or basis for outrage.
What in goodness name are you talking about? Have you not listened or internalized anything of the events of 2016's Merrick Garland missed opportunity tp be properly seated by the same "rationale" which was ignored by the same senator (turned majority leader) who uttered a different "rationale" in a shorter span of time for consideration?
This is not a both sides issue. And might does not make right-in the Senate. It is a feature of the senate to not wage uncompromising political warfare as the "senior" body in status and continuance in governance. Now, that is gone. It is open season and nothing is to be esteemed, or placed above selfish politics.
In the moment of 2016, in the clutch, the democratic senators were gracious to their opposition: President Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid, both democrats leaders, honored the request nine months after Justice Scalia's passing away to allow the next president to "do the honor."
Majority Leader Harry Reid was a man of honor. Majority Mitch McConnell is not an honorable man.
This "whataboutism" fails. Worse, republicans and conservatives know it does. Two words: Lindsey Graham (words witness to republican duplicity)!
Let's take your question first: What about Donald Trump reminds you of Barack Obama? Please be precise. Little to nothing, right. In fact, Donald Trump sells himself as the "anti-Obama" in practice!
Barack Obama's temperament and judgeships are not the focus of this discussion, because if they were, then Donald Trump would "up" Barack Obama one his naturally occurring "combativeness" posture and by the sheer number of appeals courts judges Donald has installed. Those judges which have the 'final say' on a matter not attended to by the supreme court. But, now Trump has appointed three justices to the supreme court and, I might dare to say he would consider no other matter to attempt to install a fourth-if the occasion occurred after this election. Of course, that last is simply my opinion of the man.
Stick with the present; stick with the manner of what occurred and how it occurred, and its devastating effect on the power, structure, and influence of the senate going forward. These are not "just" raw power moments. History is recording what is happening and many people will likely not fare well there.
Yes, indeed I have.
First of all McConnell was Senate majority leader in both 2016 and now in 2020, so he didn't " turn majority leader ". A fairly good summary of what was said by him and others then and now can be found in this article . The key to what he and others said in 2016 many times, but often ignored by those not wanting to listen, is this:
Bold emphasis mine.
Second, his "rationale" in 2016 and now in 2020 stand firmly on historical precedent in 29 cases where a SC vacancy arises in an election year. The difference between 2016 and 2020 being that the president and senate majority were of opposing parties in 2016 (happened 10 times in history), and of the same party in 2020 (happened 19 times in history). In those 29 cases, the precedent is clear, that when the President and Senate majority are of different parties, nominations are NOT confirmed, but when they are of the same party they are ALWAYS confirmed, and regardless of how close to or even AFTER the election in a lame duck period. See article HERE .
See my source in comment 8 above for the information on the nineteen cases where the President and Senate majority are from the same party, and the historical precedent in that case is that the nomination is confirmed. McConnell's rationale was/is consistent with historical precedent and facts that he cited in both cases, and he "ignored" nothing. What has been ignored here are the facts, and that McConnell and others have indeed cited those facts correctly in 2016 and again today.
See @9.1 my response. Thank you. Everything else I stand by.
In the moment of 2016, in the clutch, the democratic senators were gracious to their opposition: President Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid, both democrats leaders, honored the request nine months after Justice Scalia's passing away to allow the next president to "do the honor."
what does this even mean? ,garland didn’t have the votes for confirmation so he wasn’t confirmed. Reid wasn’t even in Congress in 2016.
Touchè. That's right. I got a tad turned around there with good old Harry and good old Mitch! It was Mitch who invoked the self-labeled, "Biden Rule." Now it all comes back to me (and I don't even have to look it up)!
Everything else I stand by. The democrats did not 'buck' the play by McConnell's faux rule. Not that it would have mattered we now know. Garland was not heard, advised, or consented!
Good on you, Sean!