At the time, various reports circulated to the effect that some wanted Feinstein to at least give up the Judiciary Committee seat but that she and her allies would not budge on “only if I get it back when I get better” which was a non-starter on the other side.
I can see how the way seats are assigned by resolution of the body instead of by appointment by the leadership leads to the de facto “no acting seat-fillers” rule — sure, they can vote (or more normally grant assent) to seat a replacement any time, but nothing forces them to then allow another vote to undo that when she “got better”.
Also TBF it was not just Feinstein the person behind not letting go: there is a whole Feinstein Political Apparatus from ward clerks to Senate senior staff to SuperPAC donors that has developed over 5 decades in California and DC that would have had a whole lot of weight for the leadership in Washington and Sacramento to take into account.
While the office sits vacant, her staff continue to be employed by the Senate itself. They can’t really do much — they can work on constituent issues, answer phones, etc. Upon taking office, Feinstein’s replacement will inherit her staff and both her DC and California offices. She will be free to retain or dismiss whomever she wishes.
It’s likely that most of her staff would stick around for a while to help the new Senator get her feet under her, but few staffers who worked for someone with Feinstein’s seniority will want to work for a newbie long term. As @CaveMike says, they will have no shortage of professional opportunities with other Senate offices, the Administration, lobbying, etc.
Why? I mean the GOP basically promises to not nominate anyone but white Christians, so?
Yes, that is called “ageism” and it is a form of bigotry.
And the thing is there are several strong announced candidates for That Senate seat. Newsom does not want to be seen as favoring any of them. so he is appointing a caretakers. The age is not relevant here, and in fact being older, and near retirement is a plus.
For that seat in the Senate, she would be expected but not obligated to not run again. Besides, there are several top candidates already lined up and raising funds.
Ageism typically is used to refer to someone in their 40s or 50s being overlooked in favor of someone a decade or two younger. It’s NOT intended to be used to quash questioning of whether some ancient old geezer is fit for a job/office, or whether it’s a good thing for them to hold said job/office.
85 is IMO, too old to still be working. That’s a person who was middle aged six presidents ago. Someone who could/should have retired back when Blackberries and iPods were the hot new things.
Since, in this case, there is no full term, then yes it is ageism. And do you know of any health issues for Barbara Lee?
But then the concern is her health issues- which are kinda moot.
Barbara Lee is 77. By no means is she an "ancient old geezer’ all of which are pretty nasty ageist pejorative terms, on the order of “beaner” Mexican. Especially “geezer” is is very clearly pejorative.
I see this said often. That the older members of congress have more experience and that is a desirable thing.
Yet, I see no evidence that being older is a benefit to a congresscritter. Sure, time in congress provides experience but that is related to time on the job, not being old. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez entered congress at 29 (she’s now 33). When she is 49 she will have 20 years of experience under her belt (assuming she makes it that far as a congresswoman).
Is someone else who is 79 but also with 20 years of experience in congress “better” than AOC would be? I don’t think so. Again, there is no evidence that the older a congresscritter is the better they are at the job just because they are old.
I’m sorry, I must object to this line of argument. Ageism doesn’t have an upper limit. If you’re using age alone as a reason to discriminate, that is ageism.
Sure, if someone has cognitive impairments relative to ageing, then that can be disqualifying. But that’s not age itself, but the cognitive impairment. And it can make some sense to consider how long the person might be able to do the job based on how long they have left to live. But that’s not actually about their age, either, since there is no fixed death date. Health would obviously also play a role.
However, in this case, we’re talking about cognitively healthy seniors and a job where, if they died in office, it wouldn’t be a big deal. So, while I think DrDeth was being a bit blunt, I do think it comes off a bit ageist to disqualify someone for this job based on age alone.
It’s not that they’re necessarily better. (That would also be ageism, in fact.) But there is the argument that life experience is a positive. It just can also be outweighed by other factors.
Plus there is a correlation between time in congress and age. I think a lot of people say “age” when they mean “experience.”
This thread is not for arguing about ageism. Let’s drop this hijack in this thread now, please, and start a different thread if you wish to continue the discussion. Thanks.
Or more importantly, seniority. Seniority, and the mover-shakerness that usually accompanies it is what makes one congresscritter more influential or capable than another. Yes, there is an element of experience, of learning how the game is really played, and of accumulating favors given and owed.
But an awful lot of the incremental value, and particularly in a hyper-partisan era, comes down to simple seniority. And he value of seniority is entirely a product of the House & Senate rules. That could be changed to stop rewarding seniority quite so steeply.
He kept his promise to appoint a black woman. She’s also the first LGBTQ Senator from California. She was not asked to pledge not to run in the election and has until December 8th to file.
Yep. This is a caretaker appointment who is understood not to have any long-term aspirations to office, much like when John Kyl was appointed to fill McCain’s seat so they’d have an R vote in a seat for a few months.
I find it interesting that Newsom has now appointed both of the current two CA senators (one of course has since won re-election) . Looking it up I was mildly surprised to find that this doesn’t appear to be a unique event.
.