Charlie’s dilemma . . . Will they pull the Football away Again?

Everyone already knows, Feinstein can retire or stay put. This is also one of our issues with government and the judiciary. The people in elected and appointed to positions make their decisions based upon what they want which leaves the constituency in a bad position. No matter how many good things done, they can all disappear over time.

No, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein Is Allowed to Resign,, Jim Newell @ Slate

The arguments portrayed by the author . . .

Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Time this week, said that 89-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who’s ailing both physically and mentally, should not retire from the Senate. She didn’t try to argue that Feinstein was actually, secretly, very healthy. Her argument was pragmatic. If Feinstein retires, Clinton said, Democrats won’t be able to replace her on the Judiciary Committee, and the Democratic plan to rebalance the federal judiciary would go poof.

“Here’s the dilemma: the Republicans will not agree to add someone else to the Judiciary Committee if she retires,” Clinton said. “I want you to think about how crummy that is. I don’t know in her heart about whether she really would or wouldn’t, but right now, she can’t. Because if we’re going to get judges confirmed, which is one of the most important continuing obligations that we have, then we cannot afford to have her seat vacant.”

I understand why Hillary Clinton, who has lived the life that Hillary Clinton has lived, would assume Republicans would pull the most cynical move available to them in any given moment.

But this theory of Republicans not allowing a Feinstein replacement on the Judiciary Committee in the event she resigned is one I see Democrats float more often than Republicans. For example, in April, for example was still away from the Senate and unable to attend to her Judiciary duties. Montana Sen. Jon Tester told Politico “whether she resigns or not, it isn’t going to make any difference,” since Republicans wouldn’t allow a Judiciary replacement in the event of a resignation.

A paragraph later, though, Texas Sen. John Cornyn threw cold water all over that idea. Sure, they were filibustering Schumer’s request for Feinstein to be temporarily replaced on Judiciary. But that’s a whole other thing than not letting the majority have a majority on a committee.

“Traditionally that’s when the resolution has been changed—when somebody is no longer able to serve. There’s never been a precedent for a temporary replacement, it’s my understanding. So if the circumstances were to change, I assume that the precedent would be applied.”

Ok, Lucy is holding the football again and waiting for Charlie to kick it. Will she pull the ball away at the last minute and Charlie ends up on his back after wiffing? As one of those “whoa’s me Dems,” why should we trust Repubs to do the agreed to thing, precedent, or the right thing now?

Why is it we seem to find ourselves in this situation time after time?