309

Senator Dianne Feinstein appeared confused during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Thursday. When asked to vote on a proposal, Feinstein began giving a lengthy speech instead of simply saying "aye" or "nay" as requested. The committee chair, Senator Patty Murray, had to repeatedly tell Feinstein "just say aye" and remind her that it was time for a vote, not speeches. After some delay, Feinstein finally cast her vote. A spokesperson said Feinstein was preoccupied and did not realize a vote had been called. The incident raises further concerns about Feinstein's ability to serve at age 90, as she has made other recent mistakes and often relies on aides.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Bendavisunlv6@lemmynsfw.com 130 points 1 year ago

I said it for Mitch McConnell and I’ll say it for Feinstein too. People of advanced age whose mental faculties are becoming unreliable should not be in positions of great power. Step down, ma’am.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 32 points 1 year ago

What happens when that person is in mid- to late-stage dementia and can no longer even make decisions for herself? How can she step down from office given she very obviously struggles to recognize she's in office? How can she be removed from office involuntarily? Ordinary people in her situation would have a guardian by now

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago

She has a caretaker who is acting as a guardian, but that care taker is Nancy Pelosi's niece, and Pelosi want's Feinstein to finish her term, so the seat can go to Adam Shiff, and not be filled by Governor Newsom, who has said he would appoint a Black woman to the seat, likely a progressive. Maxine Waters or Barbara Lee.

As a counterpoint, Feinstein is on the Judiciary committee, and if she were to retire mid-term, Democrats would lose that seat until the next election. So Republicans could then halt any judicial appointments.

As a counter counterpoint, Feinstein hasn't been showing up to that committee, so it's already happening.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

Great info, thank you. Regarding your first point, I don't think Schiff has a chance at that seat, but I guess we'll see

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

I can easily see the DNC having Newsom put Shiff in the seat if Feinstein dies (she's not going out any other way). Then Shiff would be the incumbent and the DNC and Dem voters usually go for the incumbent. Otherwise, they'll end up with Porter. She makes waves and the boys at the top, they don't like waves.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gst0ck@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

People shouldn't be continuing to vote her into office.

[-] HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago

She's my senator. I vote against her in the past 3 primaries... but not enough people do. I keep voting for her, not because I want her, but because the republican alternative is still somehow worse.

Also I email her office a few times a year asking her to resign and let someone take her place.

[-] edgewater@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago

Sounds like a job for Ranked Choice Voting

[-] HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

I'd vote for that.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

She was last elected 5 years ago and has dramatically declined since then. I'm asking what can be done with her in office right now given her condition. Does CA have recalls?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] freeman@lemmy.pub 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Feinstein is in a bad way. Her daughter appears to be making a play for control of her trust money her husband left her by making spurious claims that the current trustees are not doing their fiduciary duty.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-07-18/sen-dianne-feinstein-asks-court-for-greater-control-of-her-late-husbands-finances

Archive version: https://archive.ph/h0DXg

The trustees attorneys response seems pretty clear cut, ESPECIALLY for a lawyer.

“My clients are perplexed by today’s filing. Richard Blum’s trust has never denied any disbursement to Senator Feinstein, let alone for medical expenses,” said Klein and Scholvinck’s attorney Steven P. Braccini in an email. Braccini noted that he had not been shown any evidence that Katherine Feinstein had power of attorney for her mother.

“Katherine [has not] made it clear, either in this filing or directly to my clients, why a sitting United States senator would require someone to have power of attorney over her. While my clients are deeply concerned, we all remain hopeful that this is simply a misunderstanding that can be quickly resolved, rather than a stepdaughter engaging in some kind of misguided attempt to gain control over trust assets to which she is not entitled.”

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] BROOT@lemm.ee 120 points 1 year ago

If 67 is the age of retirement in this country, then every single politician should be leading by example and retiring by then. I’m so sick of these geriatrics effectively ordering an entire lobster before they leave the restaurant and stick the younger folks with the bill.

[-] Kerrigor@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think that would just result in an even bigger push by right-wing politicians to move the retirement age even higher.

Better would be to tie it to the average life expectancy, updated with each census.

Why should we be punished if life expectancy goes up? Nobody should have to work until they're too old to fully enjoy life.

[-] Kerrigor@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

That's literally the opposite of what I said

[-] Cube6392@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

That's how I interpreted it too. Just because we're living longer doesn't mean our capacity for work is stretching further. My knees are already going out and I'm not near retirement age. I don't want to be stuck working longer, hating every moment of it, knowing that all this means is now I won't actually get to enjoy retirement

[-] Thrashy@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To play devil's advocate, when Social Security was established (bringing with it the concept of a "retirement age"), the age of eligibility was deliberately set such that less than half of Americans would live long enough to draw on it. The clear expectation was that you would work until you couldn't anymore.

That said, in an era when changes in life expectancy are starting to take on a K-shaped distribution and labor force participation has been on a long steady decline, tying governmental income support to age and employment duration is becoming distributionally regressive. I'd much rather have some sort of UBI system that everyone can benefit from.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one 12 points 1 year ago

I'm not a fan of this. Moving the retirement age to life expectancy would mean that you only get to retire if you live beyond your expiration date.

[-] HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

I think they mean "average life expectancy minus n years" where n is fixed at 15, or whatever. But I disagree with this too. If you work 40 years, you deserve to retire in comfort. If a billionaire needs to have one fewer boats to help cover the cost boohoo to them and their other 5 boats.

[-] PaintedSnail@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I think Kerrigor meant that requiring politicians retire at the age of retirement would cause a push for retirement age to get bumped higher, and that it would be better for the maximum age for a politician to be tied to the average life expectancy (e.g. no more than 10 years younger than the average life expectancy, or some such).

[-] Kerrigor@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Yep precisely! Sorry, I phrased it poorly. But this is exactly what I meant. If politicians are required to resign at retirement age, it creates a perverse incentive for them to RAISE the retirement age - which would be bad.

If it is tied to life expectancy minus ten years, then it is based on data that adjusts automatically, and it's less about age itself, more about average life expectancy remaining.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BROOT@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

You’re probably right. And it’s not like any of them will ever vote for term limits. Our political system is a joke.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 24 points 1 year ago

No the retired need representation as well. You can't right a wrong with another wrong. There needs to be a system in place for health evaluation and once you fail that without having a viable and reasonable path to improvement then you're ineligible to be reelected. This needs multiple, separate, groups of people involved to reduce the risk of being used as a tool to oust undesirables. I can't design such a system but I trust that people more well versed in how government works in the nitty gritty could design a suitable, acceptable system.

[-] fushuan@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They need representation, they don't need to be the whole representation. In fact, I'd say that 55+ people represent them quite well, since they are aiming to retire in the next decade anyways.

I mean, they can vote, and they are a big sector of the voting base, so even if the politicians are younger, there will be enough of them wanting to please the 67+ sector.

[-] Muffi@programming.dev 16 points 1 year ago

Let's add some babies and teenagers while we're at it. I don't see them represented.

[-] GentlemanLoser@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago

I have no problem with lowering the voting age to 16.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] StringTheory@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

Voting is supposed to do all this for us, it is the check/balance.

Problem is that more than half of Americans who should vote, don’t vote.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)

They're more than wealthy enough to engage in other activities and hobbies. They got rich in civil service, now it's time for them to GTFO and make room for a younger, ~~progressive~~ leftist generation.

[-] w2qw@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

More likely they'd just raise the retirement age then...

[-] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 27 points 1 year ago

I'm way past sick of this fucking gerontocracy. The people determining the future should have a stake in it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] fades@beehaw.org 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Absolutely disgusting, completely disconnected from not only the nation but reality itself.

just another traitor standing in the way of progress

Just like RBG, too interested in personal power and ego, what else is new I guess

Edit: and naps, who doesn’t love a little power nap

[-] tangentism@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think she has enough consistent cognitive functionality to know wtf is going on really.

She's being propped up by Pelosi rather than being allowed to decompose horizontally with dignity.

It's indicative of just how corrupt the political class is in every western country

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] GentlemanLoser@reddthat.com 10 points 1 year ago

I don't think she's interested in much besides naps at this point.

This is 1000% on her staff, family, and colleagues.

[-] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago
[-] ozoned@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago

While I think she's missed too much, she's quite old, and I think she should be replaced (though I'm not in her area so this is a moot point really), did anyone here actually watch the video?

This is a confusion in procedure and happens all the time.

Here is the video, go to 53:40 approximately:

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings/full-committee-markup-of-fiscal-year-2024-defense-interior-and-environment-labor-health-and-human-services-education-and-homeland-security-appropriations-acts

[-] snowbell@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

Just fuckin stooooopp already JFC

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago

People decry most "both sides" arguments for legitimate reasons. But this geriatric pandering takes place on both sides. It is absolutely disgusting to witness.

[-] lightninhopkins@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

The GOP is dying for the left to pick up the mantle of putting age limits on serving in congress and the courts. It will help galvanize their base of older folks to vote. Don't fall for it.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 year ago

The GOP is dying for the left to:

  • Protect women's health
  • Do something about health care in general
  • Do something about gun violence
  • Protect the working class
  • Address any of the many systemic issues

It will galvanize their base. Don't fall for it.

Baphomet help us all!

[-] gogorocketpower@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago

Term limits need to be implemented and a basic mental aptitude test should be required

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
309 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10162 readers
79 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS