Everyone acknowledges that Dianne Feinstein is not able to serve as a senator at this point. The Democrats thought they had found a workaround. The Republicans are now telling them NO.

We are back to the same problem that was highlighted before – too many politicians stay in power long after they should be retired. This has been a chronic problem on both the right and the left, but it happens to be the Democrats who are particularly feeling the pinch right now, between an 80 year old president whose staff calls a “lid” at 9 am on a Monday morning (apparently, the weekend was not long enough for Old Man Biden to recover from his grueling trip back on Air Force One from Ireland) and the 89 year old Feinstein, who is still recovering from shingles and is back in California while her staff holds down the shop. After feeling the pressure from activists on the left and then fellow Democrats, Feinstein (via her office) offered to step down temporarily from the Senate Judiciary Committee in a measured concession to the left. If another Democrat could be temporarily named to the Judiciary Committee, then the judges that the Biden administration could be rammed through on party-line votes. The activists would get off Feinstein’s back, and she could keep her seat until retirement.

Republicans are not just going to roll over and let that happen. And they should not. This is the bed the Democrats made, and they shouldn’t just get out of having to lie in it.

Praising Feinstein as a “trailblazing” senator, moderate Maine Republican Susan Collins said that “during the past two years, it has become crystal clear that there has been a concerted campaign to force her off the Judiciary Committee, and I will have no part in it.”

Schumer said he is angling to have a conversation with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell about the matter soon — but over the course of Monday, deal-making GOP senators from Collins to Bill Cassidy (R-La.) to Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). lined up in opposition to temporarily replacing Feinstein on the panel.”

Republicans’ blockade of the resolution to replace Feinstein will effectively make it tougher for Democrats to confirm more judges — which Biden’s party can normally do unilaterally with a 51-49 majority. The judiciary panel’s chair, Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), has repeatedly delayed committee votes on lifetime appointees during Feinstein’s treatment for shingles. Democrats still have some judicial nominees ready for floor votes, but that list will run dry relatively soon without action at the Judiciary Committee.”

Schumer said he expects Feinstein to return to the Senate soon and that “We think the Republicans should allow a temporary replacement till she returns. I hope the Republicans will join us in making sure this happens, since it is the only right and fair thing to do.”

Well, if Schumer “expects” Feinstein to get back to the Senate “soon,” then what’s the rush? Answer: there is no timetable and he’s lying. And get the popcorn, because Feinstein can’t be removed unless REPUBLICANS agree.

Reshuffling the panel’s roster this week would require unanimous consent from all senators, which means just one Republican could block it. And the Judiciary Committee members opposing a Feinstein replacement on Monday included Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Tillis. All cited Democrats’ goal of confirming liberal judicial nominees.”

Cornyn said, “Republicans are not going to break this precedent in order to bail out Sen. Schumer or the Biden administration’s most controversial nominees.”

McConnell hasn’t made a statement on Feinstein yet, but comments from Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) made it even more clear the temporary replacement that the 89-year-old senator sought is a dead end for Democrats.”

As Murkowski put it: “We need to respect not only Senator Feinstein, but also our protocols here in the Senate.”

Republicans also noted that Democrats were only maneuvering to replace her on the Judiciary panel, not her other committee assignments. Summing up his party’s position, Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said that “you’re starting to get a flavor that, certainly from Democrats’ standpoint, this is not going to be a slam dunk.”

“The Dems are sort of using this because they want pressure on her to resign. And I think this gives them sort of a lever to do that,” Thune added of Feinstein.”

Dick Durbin thinks that Republicans should play nice here, because Democrats would be nice if Republicans were in this position. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA bullshit.

“Tomorrow, this could happen to the Republicans and they could find themselves in a vulnerable position through no fault of their own,” Durbin said Monday. “And I hope that they’ll show a little kindness and caring for their colleagues.”

The “kindness and caring” that should be shown here is for the obviously ailing Feinstein, and instead the left is looking to steamroll her in order to firm up their grip on the judiciary. But it’s the REPUBLICANS’ fault for not letting the Democrats just do what they want. Sure.

“From my judgment, this is a matter of respect for Sen. Feinstein, and it’s extremely disappointing that Republicans would want to put politics into our committee assignments, just as we would work with them if there was a situation on their side to temporarily fill a slot,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), the No. 3 Senate Democrat.”

“They should be doing that for us. That’s just normal Senate courtesy,” she added.”

Amazing how this “normal Senate courtesy” always works in favor of what the Democrats want. So, the “unanimous consent” motion that Schumer is likely to introduce will fail, because all it takes is one senator to say “no.” There’s more than one saying “no.”

Senate Democrats are also attempting to upend precedent and Senate custom by abolishing home-state Senators’ right to object to Biden’s activist liberal judges. We must stand up and protect the Senate’s constitutional role to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees.

— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) April 17, 2023

Which means that Schumer would then have to get a 60 vote majority to agree to remove Feinstein from the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats only have 50 votes (Feinstein isn’t there to vote, remember), so he needs ten Republicans to agree. Two of the likely targets for Democrats to flip would have been Collins and Murkowski, and they’ve already said “no” (though their motives are more personal and procedural than anything else). And if Collins and Murkowski are not going to vote for removing Feinstein, then the entire vote is dead on arrival.

The only recourse now for Democrats is to pressure Feinstein to resign – something she probably cannot consent to doing, and the Senate leadership likely knows that. And her resignation would be a problem for Governor Gavin Newsom, who has presidential aspirations of his own and can’t afford to alienate any of the Democrats jockeying for position during a primary.

And lost in all this political tit-for-tat and triangulating is an ailing woman who likely has little idea or awareness of what is happening in the Senate because of her absence. Again, I have no sympathy for the Democrats or with Feinstein’s politics. But as I watch my own family members of Feinstein’s generation decline in health, I do feel sad for the woman herself. Is there anyone still looking out for Feinstein the person, and not just Feinstein the senator’s power? If she resigned tomorrow, would the Democrats give a solid damn about her in one week?

Featured image: Senator Dianne Feinstein via Senate Democrats on Flickr, cropped, Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)