Bob Dole stayed in politics too long. So did John McCain. So did Ruth Ginsberg. And now Diane Feinstein.
Of course we could add Presidents Biden and Trump to the list too.
Don’t forget Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.
The median age in the senate is 65.3 years old (57.9 in the House).
My thinking is, the appointee presents credentials. A group of Republicans move to refer the credentials to a committee. This motion is debatable, see Raddick p. 707 and 709.
~Max
Than you. I should make a list.
Thank you. I should make a list.
So wait, if he pledged to appoint a Black women, and there’s an obvious Black women to appoint, why is this a problem? Just because there are some other people who would like the job? There are always other people who would like the job.
It would never fly, but a requirement to pass a cognitive testing exam* for elected officials 80 or over would be more fair than a rigid age limit.
I doubt there’s a possibility we could see a repeat of the final 1 1/2 years of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency (where his wife Edith took on a major role as gatekeeper, among other things), but it’s a grim prospect.
*imagine the fuss over establishing a passing grade. And we could imagine much younger current members of Congress who’d be likely to flunk.
You go on to hint at it, but: why “80 or over”? Why not just “cognitive testing exam”?
Because we’re talking about supposed age-related declines?
If we substitute testing of critical thinking capacity for younger members of Congress, I suspect there’d be a lot of holes to fill.
Well, yeah, but that’s not really the concern, is it? If Feinstein is as bad as they say, but we learned that that, oh, hey, it’s not age-related; make no mistake, her brain is exactly as messed up as you think, but not for that reason, the reply should be “I don’t care,” right?
Then you’d just be filibustering the motion to refer, and the Senator-elect gets seated because he or she is presumed to be the legitimately elected/appointed Senator per Senate precedents. And since they’re in the minority, there’s nothing that Republicans could do anyway once the President Pro Tempore starts recognizing him or her to speak, offer motions, etc.
But honestly, this is the sort of navel-gazing, rules-lawyering, how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument that I hate. The Senate just doesn’t work that way. Republicans aren’t going to try to pull out some sort of arcane procedural maneuver to keep a duly appointed Senator from taking his or her seat. That’s a terrible precedent for them, too. And even if they did, Democrats wouldn’t just throw their hands in the air and say, “oh no, they invoked Rule 974.38/c! Well played, Republicans!” As the majority, they’re going to seat their Senator and rules and precedents will be cited to support their position.
I have long since stopped relying on republicans behaving according to precedent or established rules. If they can do something to thwart democrats there is now good reason to think they will do so.
If the tables turn and dems do it to them they just cry that dems complained before but now they do the same. Rinse and repeat.
Feinstein only has a year and a half left in her term, and then she will be replaced with somebody younger. As long as she can vote, I’m fine with that. The other side has far more inept and unqualified people than Feinstein.
She might be disabled again. She’s not up the job and should step down.
Welcome to Realpolitik.
Were Feinstein to step down, the processes required to replace her will take longer than just allowing her to do her job Weekend at Bernie’s style through the end of her term. The Senate has its bare majority sufficient to get their judges through at lightning speed only with Feinstein in place.
She should have stepped aside for someone else prior to her last election. But she didn’t, and we are where we are.
Surely governor Newsom has been pondering a replacement long before now. I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t already have a very short list at hand. Likewise, I am sure people who would want that seat have already been lobbying for it behind the scenes. I can’t see why this would have to take a long time at all.
Of course.
But @tamerlane very neatly summed up exactly why Newsom doesn’t want to do this. He put himself in a real pickle with his open promise to fill the seat with a Black woman. Schiff and Porter are openly vying for the seat along with Barbara Lee, so that promise now comes with serious repercussions for Newsom’s own ambitions for higher office. He’ll do it (and appoint Lee, I believe) if forced by Feinstein’s death while in office. But not before, if he can help it.
Why doesn’t he want to appointment her?
I won’t repeat what @tamerlane so succinctly laid out, but here is his post earlier in the thread that explains:
If you were Newsom, who has ambitions to one day run for president, would you want to make enemies of powerful California politicians like Adam Schiff and Katie Porter?
By far his favorite option is to simply let Feinstein’s position go to election in a year and a half.
So the issue is that those two will forever hold it against him if he keeps his promise?
No way to know the answer to that. But I suspect it’s a chance Newsom doesn’t want to take.
ETA: It also presupposes that Feinstein is willing to step down – which she is not. And given how the white men in the Republican Party kid-gloved their own too-olds as named earlier in this thread such as Dole, Thurmond and Helms, I don’t see why she should.