Eh, Boxer and Feinstein are both from the SF Bay Area and were concurrent senators for years. There’s really no SoCal senator and NoCal senator.
(Really asking here)
If Feinstein’s family has her legally declared incompetent can they have her resign from the senate?
There’s no rule or precedent that would allow someone to “resign on behalf of” a mentally incompetent Senator.
Another motivator for Newsom is that he doesn’t want to find himself in a power struggle with Nancy Pelosi, who (if recent semi-speculative articles can be believed) is taking an active role in shepherding Feinstein to the end of her term because Pelosi wants to influence who succeeds her.
Evidently, Pelosi favors Schiff for the seat, and if Newsom installs Lee this will annoy Pelosi because of how it may skew things going forward.
I don’t know if I entirely buy this, but I don’t know if I can discount it either.
[Chuck Schumer approaches Diane Feinstein about resigning]
Feinstein: Why should I welcome you, Chuck Schumer?
Pelosi’s Daughter: A just question, my liege. Late is the hour in which this Senator chooses to appear. “Lathspell” I name him. Ill news is an ill guest.
Out of curiosity, could Feinstein announce that she’s decided to run again in ‘24?
Sure she could. There is no rule/law that would stop her.
That said, I cannot imagine her trying no matter how much hubris she has (and, as mentioned, she has already said she will not run again…but in theory she could change her mind).
Feinstein - “Today I am announcing my candidacy for Senator from the great state of California. I look forward to running again in ‘24’.” Aides clarified later that her notes referenced 1924.
I’m not inclined to believe Feinstein is holding onto her position out of ego, power or perks. She is there primarily for her vote, specifically for judges who would otherwise not get confirmed. The Democratic leadership understands this, which is why they never criticized her absence. It doesn’t matter if she is not fit to fulfill all a senator’s duties (many of which are actually performed by aides, anyway); her still-viable vote is critical to prevent Republicans from blocking confirmations of judges and perhaps other legislation.
Republicans have already nixed a temp replacement for Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee and I see no reason to believe they would let an appointed senator take her place, either. Why would Democrats take the chance on a replacement as long as Feinstein can still vote?
Feinstein is effectively taking heat for serving Democratic causes to the end (of her life). Some might call that “brave” or even “heroic.” I don’t think I’d go that far, but it definitely has some praiseworthy aspects.
Sure there is. That’s the whole point of competency hearings in the first place.
If McConnell is allowed to block, and prevent from ever happening, President Obama’s Supreme court nomination, then in that spirit of Congressional norm I say that the distinguished Senator Feinstein should continue to serve, just as long as she knows which button to push. If congressional Republicans have taught me anything in this life, it is “Fuck congressional Republicans.”
There is no Senate rule or precedent that would allow a Senator to be declared incompetent and removed from office. If some judge were willing to declare Feinstein incompetent and appoint a guardian who attempted to resign on Feinstein’s behalf, it would still be up to the Senate to decide whether that was a valid act.
Sure there is. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
Yeah, I see I kind of butchered the point I was trying to make. The Senate can expel a member for any reason at all as long as two-thirds of the Senate agrees. The Senate has never expelled a member for incompetence, but it could.
What I was arguing against was the idea that Feinstein could be judicially declared incompetent, and this would allow a court-appointed guardian to resign her seat for her. Only the Senate could decide if this was valid. Which they would do when they decided whether to seat her successor.
Did a little research and found this:
2 USC 8(a)
Except as provided in subsection (b), the time for holding elections in any State, District, or Territory for a Representative or Delegate to fill a vacancy, whether such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time prescribed by law, or by the death, resignation, or incapacity of a person elected, may be prescribed by the laws of the several States and Territories respectively.
So it seems that Federal Law would allow the seat of an incapacitated Representative to be declared vacant (how I don’t know) but I don’t see any corresponding federal law for a Senator.
I may have missed it above, but if she resigns, and Newsom appoints a non-temporary replacement, does that person automatically fill her spot on the Judiciary committee? Or is that something the Republicans have control over? Does the replacement have to jump thru some hoops, or get over some hurdle, to fill the spot on the committee? I thought the Democrats had full control over who they assign to comittees, no?
Under current senate rules the GOP can filibuster committee assignments.
Right, I understood.
What I’m saying is that resigning from your job is exactly the kind of authority that competency proceedings are intended to convey to a guardian. There are definitely rules for this. The Senate doesn’t own her. Senator is her job, and you’re allowed to resign from your job. Feinstein has that power right now. If financial, legal, contractual etc. powers passed from her to a guardian, then the guardian could do it for her, unless for some reason the court decided quitting her job was specifically a power she retained, despite being incompetent to manage her checking account or her medical affairs or whatever.
Is there precedent for that with a new senator? Here is all I could find on that from a mainstream source:
I’d think that Ro Khanna would not be in favor of her resigning if there was a substantial risk in this area.
My understanding is that if a new senator took over, they would be allowed on committees and such. It’s the nonstandard “temporarily remove her from this committee” that was going to be filibustered.
But my understanding may be wrong.