politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It says something that he's still the minority leader. Feinstein has similar issues and is still around, but she's just a random senator. This is the Republican senate leader.
I imagine many knives are being sharpened behind the scenes. I wonder if he's actively keeping himself in power, or if other people with power are "managing" (puppeting) him until they can grab power for themselves.
In Feinsteins case, she's on the narrowly held judiciary committee. If she were to retire (and she should for her own sake, though she may not be capable of deciding at this point), no more judges get confirmed till after the next election (to my understanding).
So not just any senator.
If she resigned the California governor would appoint somebody to fill her spot, still giving democrats control of the senate they would be able to appoint somebody else to that committee, or am I way off base?
For Diane Feinstein to resign from the Judiciary Committee and for appointing someone else to the committee right now requires unanimous consent, and the Democrats are not going to get that from the Republicans right now. Regardless, the act of replacing someone on a committee is subject to debate and can be filibustered. If Diane Feinstein were to retire or die, that's it, a 10-10 split in the Judiciary Committee until the next Congress, so long as the Republicans refuse to play ball.
Pardon my ignorance, which rule would apply requiring unanimous consent? And which one allows for debate when filling a vacancy? I can't seem to find it.
I misspoke, unanimous consent isn't required, but it makes the process much smoother, and is considered the "normal" means of ratifying committee assignments.
Isn't there also some drama about how the governor and the democratic establishment want different people in her seat? The establishment wants to wait for the election to get the more moderate Schiff, who's a safer bet against lesser known progressives. But if the governor can appoint his progressive pick, as an incumbent they'll have a better shot at sticking.
I don't care for Mitch's politics, but I doubt I'll like who comes after any better.
But, odds are they won't be as effective at it. As awful as he has been, he's also been very effective. It's rare for a senate leader from either party to obstruct things as well as he's obstructed them, or to shovel through things as effectively as he has.
His voice has lost any strength and authority it had, he sounds like my strong, loud grandpa after he got bad dementia, he sounded weak and scared. I think he's beyond controlling anything, he's being used now. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.