DiFi in hospital with shingles
-
https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/03-2-2023/feinstein-hospitalized/
What happened: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the longest-serving woman in Senate history, said she's been hospitalized for treatment of shingles in San Francisco. She's missed all the votes this week in the Senate.
Here's her statement:
"I was diagnosed over the February recess with a case of shingles. I have been hospitalized and am receiving treatment in San Francisco and expect to make a full recovery. I hope to return to the Senate later this month."
— Sen. Dianne Feinstein's statement=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
So now, there are two Democrat senators who are not voting.
-
@jon-nyc said in DiFi in hospital with shingles:
That sounds painful.
I've had two bouts of shingles. No fun, either time.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in DiFi in hospital with shingles:
That sounds painful.
I've had two bouts of shingles. No fun, either time.
@George-K said in DiFi in hospital with shingles:
@jon-nyc said in DiFi in hospital with shingles:
That sounds painful.
I've had two bouts of shingles. No fun, either time.
Should still probably await further information before making any judgments.
-
At what is clearly a critical time for confirming good federal judges, Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) increasingly prolonged absence from the Senate is apparently holding up the process for a number of President Joe Biden’s judicial picks this year.
Feinstein, who was hospitalized in early March for shingles and has remained in her San Francisco home since March 7, has missed 60 votes of the 82 taken in the Senate in 2023, per the San Francisco Chronicle. And as the Senate, which has been on recess since March 31, prepares to return on April 17, Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Monday that Feinstein’s absence from the Senate—and the Judiciary Committee specifically—will impede Democrats’ ability to confirm judicial nominees.
“I can’t consider nominees in these circumstances, because a tie vote is a losing vote in committee,” Durbin told CNN. He continued, “We still have some nominees left on the calendar that we can work on. … But we have more in the wings that we would like to process through the committee.”
Feinstein’s team has been tight-lipped about when, if at all, she’ll return to D.C. Her spokesperson told the Chronicle this week that the 89-year-old “continues to work from home in San Francisco as she recuperates.”
-
From what I have read about her, she is no longer functioning very well.
She is a good example of why there is needed to be an age limit on politicians/judges, etc. (Maybe 80 years old. You would have to leave office in the calendar year you turn 80 would be my suggestion.)
-
From what I have read about her, she is no longer functioning very well.
She is a good example of why there is needed to be an age limit on politicians/judges, etc. (Maybe 80 years old. You would have to leave office in the calendar year you turn 80 would be my suggestion.)
@taiwan_girl said in DiFi in hospital with shingles:
there is needed to be an age limit on politicians/judges, etc.
Agreed, for the most part. However, enacting such a limit is going to be a VERY heavy lift - a Constitutional amendment, I would suspect.
-
The founding fathers set lower age limits but not upper age limits. Had they set upped age limits they might have picked something like 60~70, limited by the prevailing view on human lifespan at the time. And the limit would be outdated given the advances in healthcare. We can pick a different number now, 80 or whatever. Should the Union survives another two centuries, future Americans may have to revise the age limit again.
-
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/dianne-feinstein-calls-resignation-17891779.php
Sen. Feinstein did not resign, but asked to be "temporarily replaced" on the judiciary committee, a request that Schumer has granted.
-
Hours after Khanna’s tweet, she asked to be temporarily replaced in her duties on the essential committee. Democrats are eager to comply.
But are Republicans so eager? They shouldn’t be. There’s zero reason — zero — that Republicans should cooperate with Schumer and the president on their judicial agenda, either tactically, politically, or even morally.
Republicans have the power, too: Committee assignments are decided at the beginning of the session, either by unanimous consent or, if contested, by the vote of at least 60 senators. Democrats certainly hope they can just brush this through under the former, but what reason does Sen. Josh Hawley, or maybe Sen. Mike Lee, or Sen. J.D. Vance have to let that one pass them by?
Then if one senator says no, the whole thing’s got to come to a vote, and while people like Sen. Mitt Romney might be happy to fill benches with left-wing judges in the name of “decency” or some other principle long ago extinguished by left-wing activists, getting nine other Republicans to join him might prove more difficult.
The task of persuading 10 Republicans to cooperate with the president’s judicial agenda will prove even more difficult if Sen. Mitch McConnell — himself just out of the hospital (and seven years older than Josef Stalin was when he died) — holds the line. While populist conservatives may have little love for the minority leader, they must give him credit for hard-nosed judiciary tactics.
