To corrrect a few comments below, yes it is possible to remove Feinstein from the Senate against her will. However, that would require 2/3 of the Senate to vote for her expulsion (and no, there doesn't have to be a finding of misconduct, Constitution does not specify that as a requirem…
To corrrect a few comments below, yes it is possible to remove Feinstein from the Senate against her will. However, that would require 2/3 of the Senate to vote for her expulsion (and no, there doesn't have to be a finding of misconduct, Constitution does not specify that as a requirement).
But that's never going to happen because if she were to be expelled, Governor Newsome (Dem) would get to replace her and/or a special election would be called. Both scenarios guarantee a Dem replacement.
Given that the Republicans want to keep ensuring that Biden can't appoint any more judges, and given that the Dems have a tenous "majority" (in so far as the VP casts the tie breaker) Republicans would rather keep Feinstein in the Senate. After all, why would they want a guaranteed Dem Senate vote in the Senate, over having the Senate seat occupied by a Senator who may have significant physical impediments preventing her from voting at all, which would essentially paralize the Senate (together with Biden's policy agendas)?
And no, "basic human decency" is not on the list of realistic Republican options in this multiple-choice question.
Only other option would be for Feinstein herself to resign, but given her aggressivve responses and clear dementia when questioned by the Slate reporter, I'm not seeing that happening any time soon.
I think the republicans should be put to the test on this. First and foremost (and above all else), removing her is the right thing to do.
Now with that out of the way, the political angle is this, as I see it: If the Dems vote to expel her and the Republicans refuse, it is on them to explain how it isn't rank political hackery on their part. Joe gets to take the podium and speak in heartfelt terms about his good friend and long term colleague and what is best for America. Republicans have to come up with some lame ass shit of why the democrats are united in removing one of their own with clear video evidence to back up the reason and they (the Republicans are blocking it).
The alternative is to do nothing, which is going to make it much easier to sell to idiots that the Dems are keeping an obviously unfit person in office for their own gain.
Dear heart republicans do not care. These are the same people ready to blow up the economy one way or the other, they like Senator Feinstein right where she is, sick and ineffective.
Not targeting republicans. Targeting independents. Targeting those people with dementia experience who outside of politics would easily come to the same conclusion and might be given pause when seeing how republicans react.
And again, it isn't in my mind a choice between neutral zero action and my suggestion (doomed in your framework). It's a choice between getting painted as the uncaring bastards keeping her there to keep power and my suggestion.
From a theoretical perspective, I 100% agree that your suggestion is the best course of action. Hell, I think that up until 2008 that would have been a move that could have shifted some Republican votes through shame alone.
Sadly, we're now in such a polarized media environment that Republicans can't be shamed to do the right thing, because the likes of Fox News will either refuse to cover the issue (they barely covered the defamation settlement) or will outright lie to their viewers.
And the way the Republicans handled the Dem effort to have Feinstein temporarily replaced on the Judiciary Committee is a good roadmap to how they would handle an expulsion vote.
In that instance, Republicans voted against temporarily replacing Feinstein and cited ridiculous arguments where they seem to be claiming that Feinstein is being unfairly pressured to leave the committee.
This piece is chock-full of ridiculous Republican arguments for denying the temporary replacement:
Re: Feinstein
Yikes, this is problematic for the Dems.
To corrrect a few comments below, yes it is possible to remove Feinstein from the Senate against her will. However, that would require 2/3 of the Senate to vote for her expulsion (and no, there doesn't have to be a finding of misconduct, Constitution does not specify that as a requirement).
But that's never going to happen because if she were to be expelled, Governor Newsome (Dem) would get to replace her and/or a special election would be called. Both scenarios guarantee a Dem replacement.
Given that the Republicans want to keep ensuring that Biden can't appoint any more judges, and given that the Dems have a tenous "majority" (in so far as the VP casts the tie breaker) Republicans would rather keep Feinstein in the Senate. After all, why would they want a guaranteed Dem Senate vote in the Senate, over having the Senate seat occupied by a Senator who may have significant physical impediments preventing her from voting at all, which would essentially paralize the Senate (together with Biden's policy agendas)?
And no, "basic human decency" is not on the list of realistic Republican options in this multiple-choice question.
Only other option would be for Feinstein herself to resign, but given her aggressivve responses and clear dementia when questioned by the Slate reporter, I'm not seeing that happening any time soon.
I think the republicans should be put to the test on this. First and foremost (and above all else), removing her is the right thing to do.
Now with that out of the way, the political angle is this, as I see it: If the Dems vote to expel her and the Republicans refuse, it is on them to explain how it isn't rank political hackery on their part. Joe gets to take the podium and speak in heartfelt terms about his good friend and long term colleague and what is best for America. Republicans have to come up with some lame ass shit of why the democrats are united in removing one of their own with clear video evidence to back up the reason and they (the Republicans are blocking it).
The alternative is to do nothing, which is going to make it much easier to sell to idiots that the Dems are keeping an obviously unfit person in office for their own gain.
Dear heart republicans do not care. These are the same people ready to blow up the economy one way or the other, they like Senator Feinstein right where she is, sick and ineffective.
Not targeting republicans. Targeting independents. Targeting those people with dementia experience who outside of politics would easily come to the same conclusion and might be given pause when seeing how republicans react.
And again, it isn't in my mind a choice between neutral zero action and my suggestion (doomed in your framework). It's a choice between getting painted as the uncaring bastards keeping her there to keep power and my suggestion.
From a theoretical perspective, I 100% agree that your suggestion is the best course of action. Hell, I think that up until 2008 that would have been a move that could have shifted some Republican votes through shame alone.
Sadly, we're now in such a polarized media environment that Republicans can't be shamed to do the right thing, because the likes of Fox News will either refuse to cover the issue (they barely covered the defamation settlement) or will outright lie to their viewers.
And the way the Republicans handled the Dem effort to have Feinstein temporarily replaced on the Judiciary Committee is a good roadmap to how they would handle an expulsion vote.
In that instance, Republicans voted against temporarily replacing Feinstein and cited ridiculous arguments where they seem to be claiming that Feinstein is being unfairly pressured to leave the committee.
This piece is chock-full of ridiculous Republican arguments for denying the temporary replacement:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-block-temporary-replacement-for-sen-feinstein-on-judiciary-committee