No - he was instead playing political defense. When Kamala Harris became VP it opened a slot. She had been the first Black female senator in CA (and only the second in the Senate). Black and female politicians in CA wanted her to be replaced like for like and pressured Newsom accordingly. Instead Newsom appointed an ally to become the first male Latino senator (Alex Padilla) from CA. To tamp down the angry attacks he made that promise as a peace offering.
Will democrats be able to put a replacement for Feinstein on the committees she sat on? (Particularly the judiciary committee.)
If yes will they put Feinstein’s replacement on or can they appoint anyone they want to that seat?
That state doesn’t exist to me anymore, so I’ve personally passed the nickname on to California.
(Actually, i forgot that it was Florida.)
I gotta correct the answer I gave you in the other thread – it would require the Senate to pass a resolution to appoint her successor to her committees, or to move other Senate Democrats into those spots (the more likely outcome given how juicy her committee appointments are). These resolutions have routinely been passed by unanimous consent in the past, but technically they are debatable (which means they can be filibustered).
Would Republicans filibuster? I think it’s unlikely. It sets such a terrible precedent (Republicans die in office too) that I can’t imagine Democrats wouldn’t get the nine votes they need to overcome a filibuster.
I get that Barbara Lee may be pissed off about not being appointed by Newsom to replace Feinstein, but if she is the right person for the role, she can go ahead and earn it during the regular election, like everyone else. Newsom is right not to put a finger on the scales of the next, regularly scheduled, election.
Nominating Maxine Waters, who is smart, experienced, and capable, as caretaker to me sounds like a very reasonable way to navigate his dumb promise while preserving the party’s goals. If not her, then someone else we have never heard of who will owe Newsom at some future point.
And don’t misunderestimate the Republicans’ ability to cause chaos - they are already showing their cards as ready to shut-down the government and let soldiers and other critical personnel miss a few paychecks to own the libs and starve the beast. Gumming-up the Democrats’ plans for Feinstein’s replacement would be an easy lay-up.
Surely not… she’s 85!
This is a good point in general, but in this specific case, it’s the Senate Republicans who’d be messing around with individual senators’ privileges, during the mourning of a long-serving senator, and for no lasting advantage. Mitch McConnell is an evil bastard, but he’s not stupid.
All the more reason to give her a job that is temporary where she is obligated not to run again.
Would she be obligated to not run again?
I doubt she has any fundraising behind her at this point, and the big money in the California Dem party has likely backed one of the big 3 currently running for the seat. I’d be flabbergasted if she ran.
No. She’s not obligated to not run now for that matter. If she had aspirations for Senate, she would have done that years ago.
California is the Golden State.
I wouldn’t be upset if Maxine Waters were the placeholder senator. She’s been my congressperson off-and-on for a long time. Congressional boundaries moved around, and for a while Ted Lieu was my c-person.
Note that the two primaries will be on the same date (March 5), and the two elections will also be on the same date (November 5). One will be to finish the term that ends on 1/3/2025, and the other for the full 6-year term that begins on that date. The state had to do the same thing to replace Kamala Harris when she became Vice-President. There is also nothing that prevents anyone from running in both primaries; Alex Padilla did, and ended up winning both elections that November.
Ironically, Feinstein was first elected to the Senate in a similar special election, necessitated by Pete Wilson resigning to become Governor of California. There were two Senate elections at the same time back then as well, in 1992; one to fill the remaining two years of Wilson’s term, won by Feinstein, and one for the six-year term of retiring senator Alan Cranston, won by Barbara Boxer. Because Feinstein’s term began immediately while Boxer’s started on January 3, Feinstein was considered California’s senior Senator.
Supposedly, Governor Newsom wants to appoint someone who won’t run for the full term in 2024; the problem is, there is nothing he can do to prevent whoever he chooses from running.
Missed the edit window…anyway, it’s 148 or more days from the date the seat became vacant to the date of the primary election, not the general election. The 3/5/2024 primary is 158 days after 9/29/2023.
Yeah, you may be right:
Why GOP is very unlikely to block Feinstein’s replacement on Judiciary Committee
A spokesperson for Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who’s also on the Judiciary Committee, sent along the senator’s comments from a reporter scrum earlier in the day: “I don’t think this should be handled any differently than filling any other vacancy,” Cornyn said. “The problem was there wasn’t a true vacancy before.”
The “before” was the Democrats’ attempt to appoint a temporary replacement for Feinstein earlier this year. Let’s see how the next few days go.
I am not arguing…I am trying to understand…
Was the issue before that Feinstein would remain a senator and someone else would fill her seat on a committee? If she had resigned wouldn’t that be a “true vacancy?” I thought in previous discussions around here she could not resign because her seat on the judiciary committee would remain empty till the next congress.
So, is death the only way to a “true vacancy” for republicans? I get there are no hard answers to this. It’s just frustrating.
Yeah, that is the gist I am getting - if an elected Senator is still alive, no replacement for you! The article I linked suggests Democrats took Republicans by their word when they refused to consider a temporary replacement and extended that rhetoric to a legitimate replacement should Feinstein die while in office (AKA a “true” vacancy to them).
I think they would have replaced her if she resigned and left the Senate. They weren’t going to let her stay in the Senate with someone new on the committees.
Lots of Senators have resigned mid-term and their replacements are seated on committees. Feinstein’s death or resignation from the Senate would have created a “true vacancy.” What Schumer had previously proposed was that Feinstein would be temporarily replaced on the Judiciary Committee by Senator Ben Cardin, with the option to resume her seat on the committee when she recovered enough to resume work. Republicans argued – correctly – that this sort of replacement was unprecedented. Of course, there’s no reason why it being unprecedented means it should have been disallowed, but that’s the argument they made.
Would be rather unfortunate if DEMs lost their majority on both the SC and Senate because two (very distinguished) women thought they were irreplaceable and immortal.