If Feinstein resigns and is replaced by appointment, would it still require a resolution to replace her?
If not, then politically, it would be better for her to resign.
If so, then her resigning just means that it is guaranteed that no judges make it through the committee this session.
Yeah, cause recent developments make clear that there aren’t enough R-leaning federal judges at all levels. 
My understanding is that the organizing resolution adopted at the start of the session specifies that each named Senator serves on specific committees. Any change to that — whether due to resignation, death or getting raptured — requires unanimous consent or a new resolution.
So, calls for her resignation now are pretty counterproductive, and would only serve to cement the current situation in the judiciary committee?
I think that answers the question in the OP.
Absolutely. Unless… Does anyone know what happens to a nominatin with a 9-9 tie in committee?
Well that sucks. Because she should totally resign. She’s too old, and too sick to do the job.
I think it would be less likely Republicans would sustain a filibuster if she left and were replaced. They’d be denying the new Senator any committee assignments. That’s a precedent even they may blanch at.
Well that sucks. I believe you but I am amazed that replacements cannot be made without unanimous consent.
I get they don’t want committee appointments being shuffled at a whim but neither can I imagine they are blocked by the other party. It seems party politics 101 that each party picks their own appointees and the other party does not interfere.
Guess I am wrong on that.
Biden should indicate he will stack the supreme court or they let the dems put who they want on the judiciary committee.
Not being from California, I had no say in it, but I was against her running in the last election for that very reason.
But her voters disagreed and put her in.
And stopping Biden from nominating any new judges.
Also, would it make sense (in a world where anything makes sense) for her replacement in the Senate to also replace all her committee assignments? I’d think that, once again in a normal world, that replacement would get committees more suitable to new Senators, and a senior senator would replace her.
I could actually see a reasonable argument made to block the nomination of a wet behind the ears Senator to such an important committee.
I don’t think they’ve met a precedent they wouldn’t break if it benefitted them at all.
At this point, I’d rather risk her semi-conscious body being wheeled in and a staffer discretely moving her hand to the correct vote button than the Republicans respecting precedent.
If she dies, I would find it slightly more likely that Republicans don’t block her replacement.
I know plumb committee appointments are generally done by seniority but I think this shows that important committee appointments need to be given to younger members (and that does not mean “young”…just younger).
Feinstein is not the first member of congress to lose their faculties to age nor will she be the last. The leadership needs to account for this.
FTR: I am not dumping on Feinstein (I might in another thread but not for this). I have had a few elderly family members succumb to Alzheimer’s/dementia. It sucks but it happens. It also is a strong argument for term limits but that is another thread (and also super unlikely to happen).
Democrats: “Oh no! We have to play by the rules! We want to win the right way!”
Republicans: “F the rules! We’ll do whatever it takes to give ourselves an advantage!”
Sometimes I wish I could upvote a post here.
I was thinking the same thing and wholeheartedly agree.
Exactly. It’s a daft rule to begin with that committee assignments can be filibustered. Keeping it in place when you KNOW the other side will NOT abide by established norms is flabbergasting.
Of course she should resign.
One of the problems is that you have to get everyone on board with dropping the rule. While getting a filibuster broken is difficult, so is getting Manchin or Sinema to allow the removal of the filibuster.
It’s not up to party leadership, it’s up to those two individuals.
I’m all for dropping the filibuster. I was and have been for getting rid of it since back in 2008. I think the country would be in a much better place had we done so.
But we have to play within the reality that we exist, and in this reality, the filibuster will not be dropped during this congressional term.
Disagree. I know many people much older than she is that are physicaly healthy and mentally sound.
Younger people can also have as serious or more health conditions.
It is more likely that she is the only one who can do the job, and that if she resigns, then no one can.
Nah, we just need to Weekend at Bernie’s it.
Or she dies and it is politically harder for Republicans to block her replacement.
Or, she recovers and returns to work. (Best case.)
Perhaps a discussion for another thread…
My understanding is McConnell and/or Schumer (maybe just McConnell) can force a standing filibuster. As in making a member filibuster old-style. “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” style. Make them stand up there till they collapse.
I’d be ok with that kind of filibuster.
At some point, though, these cases become exceptional. There are people who die young, of cancer or accident. My great-aunt worked full time until she was 95. Absolute limits and zero tolerance are the wrong way to go, because these exceptions have a lot to contribute, but 89 (90 in June) is certainly well past the age where it is reasonable to expect any person to do a job. It’s reasonable to consider whether they could, and to accept that they could, but unreasonable to expect.
A small minority of people can work past the age of 89, but it’s not reasonable to expect them to work past the age of 89. She’s not doing the work, she’s not telling us when she might return to work, and she’s been showing early signs of incapacity for years (as is common for people of that age).
This isn’t complicated, there’s no nuance. Voters sent her to do a job. She’s not doing it because she’s no longer able, hence it’s time to her to move aside and make room for someone who can do it.
All right, you guys sent me down the rabbit hole. The Senate actually adopts two resolutions at the start of each session – a resolution with the Majority Party’s appointments to committees and the Minority Party’s appointments. For the current session, those resolutions can be found here and here. The two parties would have worked out in advance what the partisan ratios would be on each committee. The resolutions state which specific members will fill those slots.
Interestingly, both resolutions state that, “the following shall constitute the majority/minority party’s membership on the following committees for the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen.” The last Senator to be appointed mid-session was Jon Kyl to the seat vacated by John McCain’s death. He appears to have directly inherited McCain’s committee assignments. So maybe in the case of Feinstein’s death or resignation, her replacement would automatically get her committees.
I thank you for going down that rabbit hole.
I confess I cannot parse what it says despite your best efforts.