8 ms·

She was mentally unfit to serve for the last couple years. It was a travesty many countries seem to have no mental bar required to serve or even reasonable age

She was mentally unfit to serve for the last couple years. It was a travesty many countries seem to have no mental bar required to serve or even reasonable age limits (Feinstein was 90!) Any decision "she" was made in the last couple years was made by her aids and not her. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. Details: > Four U.S. senators, including three Democrats, as well as three former Feinstein staffers and the California Democratic member of Congress told The Chronicle in recent interviews that her memory is rapidly deteriorating. They said it appears she can no longer fulfill her job duties without her staff doing much of the work required to represent the nearly 40 million people of California. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/dianne-feinstein-senate-17079487.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/dianne-feinstei... With our aging population, we need to figure out how to be inclusive of those who can contribute, while identifying those who can not. Hard age limits are likely becoming less desirable as the population ages - retirement at 55 will seem like a joke. But that doesn't mean we should just accept people who are not with it in various positions of power.

chongli 3y ago
Between her and McConnell and the other gerontocrats in Washington, I’m really baffled. Why do these people grip the reins of power until their knuckles turn white? What is so important about political horse trading that they have to literally haul you out of office on a stretcher?
- bhouston 3y ago
  Even though I lean left more than right, we should probably also include Biden in that list. That guy is highly managed by his staff.
  - cableshaft 3y ago
    This is true of pretty much every high profile figure in Washington. They all have staff that manage a lot of the day to day operations. Could be a bit more true of Biden, I don't know, but I doubt it's significantly more than other high profile figures or other presidents.
    - pauldenton 3y ago
      Trump had handlers. They just wish Trump would do what they said like the other politicians
- panax 3y ago
  Why does everyone keep reelecting them? Vote for someone else. We also need a better voting system than first past the post.
  - iamwpj 3y ago
    It would require voting for the other party. The big issue is the parties being willing to back aging candidates. But of course, party leaders are just as old -- so they see no problem.
    - panax 3y ago
      There's more than two parties. Nobody is forcing you to vote for one of them. Parties are also an anti-pattern. Again we need a better system than first past the post that naturally biases towards a two party system.
      - Lord-Jobo 3y ago
        Party primaries devolve into 'the devil you know vs the devil you dont' and the Devil You Know usually has a boatload of cash to spend on the campaign that the Devil You Dont doesn't have. You are right of course, the solution lies in eliminating the party system and implementing a ranked voting system of some kind. Due to practicality and congressional gridlock, this has to happen state by state, and in many states the 'easiest' method is some sort of ballot initiative. I encourage anyone who reads this to look up the process in their state (https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_ballot_measures_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_ballot_measures_by_state) and at least try to get a signature out to one so they show up on the ballot.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - parineum 3y ago
      Not in California. Feinstein beat Kevin de Leon, a Democrat, in the 2018 general. California runs an open primary and a top two general.
  - 3y ago
- flenserboy 3y ago
  Because then their staff / funders will lose power. The officials themselves are nothing but placeholders.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Why do they cling to power? I imagine the personality type that seeks political power in the first place tends to want to keep it. It's good to be the king. At the end of the day, the people continue to elect them. If voters were unhappy with Feinstein's performance (or that of her key aides), the solution was as simple as voting her out. Name recognition is powerful. Seniority leads to leadership of key committees in the US Congress. But, I do agree that this is a problem. RBG was another example - had she retired a few years prior to her death, the state of SCOTUS would be very different today. Was she addicted to the power? Did she truly think nobody younger could do a better job? Same for Feinstein, McConnell, Biden, and many others on both sides of the aisle.
  - bhouston 3y ago
    > If voters were unhappy with Feinstein's performance (or that of her key aides), the solution was as simple as voting her out. Often these incompetent people are in "safe seat" regions. Either heavily democrat or republican. Voters won't switch parties just because representative is incompetent. There should be another options.
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      Feinstein was a Senator and CA uses a "jungle primary" for state-wide elections - there's no "safe seat" in that model. In her last election, both final candidates were Democrats. Neither party could unseat her. Voters have been clear that they preferred Feinstein to anybody else. So the question is why? Was it her power in the Senate? Was she particularly good at bringing pork to CA? Or was it just money and the political machine? Probably a lot of that last item - the parties themselves have incentives to keep winning politicians around - they're good for fund-raising.
      - giantrobot 3y ago
        Rank in Senate committee is literally about seniority. Replacing Feinstein meant the state and Democratic Party losing power in the Senate.
- 3seashells 3y ago
  They are the boomers representative and a demographic auto majority..
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- governmentdude 3y ago
  [flagged]
- dfxm12 3y ago
  First, some places, like in McConnell's case, are just statistically going to go to a particular party, due to demographics (or gerrymandering), and primary elections famously don't draw people to the polls (if there's a challenger at all). California and senate elections are slightly better in that regard, however, look at how much money Feinstein was able to raise over her opponents. This is nothing special about Feinstein, it's an advantage incumbents generally enjoy: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/dianne-feinstein/elections?cid=N00007364&cycle=2022 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/dianne-feins... I think getting this money out of politics is a start to ensuring elections are based on the candidate themselves & their policies and less around how much special interests already have invested in them. I don't have any ideas about how to get more people to show up specifically for primary elections, but the ideas people have around getting more people to vote in general elections could help, like expanding absentee voting, making it a holiday, etc.
- paulproteus 3y ago
  I can offer one piece of puzzle: the demographics of registered votes has increased significantly. Take a look at "Age and generation" at https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-... . > The U.S. electorate is aging: 52% of registered voters are ages 50 and older, up from 41% in 1996. This shift has occurred in both partisan coalitions. More than half of Republican and GOP-leaning voters (56%) are ages 50 and older, up from 39% in 1996. And among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, half are 50 and older, up from 41% in 1996. > Another way to consider the aging of the electorate is to look at median age. The median age among all registered voters increased from 44 in 1996 to 50 in 2019. It rose from 43 to 52 among Republican registered voters and from 45 to 49 among Democratic registered voters. I think that on average, people consider age significant, so they expect their candidate to be around as old as them. I don't think it's the whole picture, but it helps me feel less baffled at least.
  - miohtama 3y ago
    Tyranny of old
    - daveguy 3y ago
      And yet, only 61% of voting age citizens bother to vote. Guess which demographic makes up most of that non-voting 39%.
  - xdennis 3y ago
    I think the reason is influence. Older people have accumulated more connections and therefore have more power and influence. Their underlings support them because they lose access to a great influencer in case of removal. It's more difficult for young people to rise up when there's very little influence to be had. However, in times of great upheaval young people tend to rise up much faster as the incompetent people at the top get removed.
- layer8 3y ago
  Because, like most people, they want to feel they have purpose in their life. Giving up the job is almost like accepting death, especially if they are old.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    Bobby Bowden said, "I don't want to retire. After retirement, there's really only one big event left."
    - Clubber 3y ago
      I miss Bobby. Bear Bryant died 4 weeks after he retired.
- outside1234 3y ago
  I don't understand it either but my theory is this. This is their life. It is literally the only thing they have ever one in one form or another. For many of us this would be like never touching a computer again after turning 65.
- mikewarot 3y ago
  I'm no fan of the man, but while McConnell may have moments of confusion, but he's still all there. The same was not true of Feinstein.
coldpie 3y ago
Yes, and she's not the only one who is (edit: was) serving without being functional[1]. We need to start talking about upper age limits for public office. I believe it'd require a constitutional amendment, but I expect there's lots of support for it from all sides. I'd suggest 65 as a maximum age for being elected, which means one could serve to about age 71, for a six-year Senate term. [1] This article is from six years ago. https://www3.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2017/10/11/congressional-pharmacy-has-reportedly-delivered-alzheimer-drugs-members-congress/4K2HsLB7YqLXIFDFzyHQxM/story.html https://www3.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2017/10/11/congres...
- bhouston 3y ago
  Are age limits viable in our aging population? I think they may not work because it would exclude so many people and many voters will be aged as well? I think a low bar competency test would be more viable.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    Tests for public participation have a real, real bad history, and for good reason. Age is a simple and objective measure.
    - bhouston 3y ago
      I agree. It is just that people's facilities fall off at different rates, but as others pointed out, it is hard to make an objective test that also can not be gamed.
      - runeofdoom 3y ago
        There's nothing to prevent an older politician from advising their colleagues, serving on committee staffs or even lobbying. They're not prevented from participantion, they'd be prevented from being elected.
      - archontes 3y ago
        It's just that that's not actually really important. The test of a good system is one that admits that its members will retire and adjusts accordingly. In the military, you're always training a replacement, and come 65 (or 68), you're retiring, regardless of your capacity.
hirundo 3y ago
Say we have a professional psychiatrist, or a whole board of them, evaluating the mental competence of candidates. Occasionally they would designate one as incompetent, who would then be removed from the election. This would seem to be less democratic rather than more. The voters have less options than before, so the shift in power is from voters to experts.
- bhouston 3y ago
  There is no way to make it politically neutral and hard to game? I guess that would lead it to be more biological based? So at least age limits are something everyone can prepare for and expect, rather than it being a surprise?
  - ativzzz 3y ago
    > There is no way to make it politically neutral and hard to game? No. Psychiatry, like politics and law, depends much on the personal beliefs of the human in charge. Look at our supreme court. Justices are supposed to be impartial, but they still tend to decide cases based on their political leanings. That's a feature, not a bug, of being human. Do we really want political games around deciding who is fit or unfit for office? I can 100% guarantee that this will cause more shit-slinging from both sides at each other than meaningful action
synergy20 3y ago
There must be age limit for any job, including senators and presidents. Or, test them for physicals and minds before they can take on the job, do it annually, it's a normal practice in all other fields, it's good for all sides.
jliptzin 3y ago
It is how it’s supposed to work. She was 85 when she got elected the last time. If voters don’t want 90 year olds in office, maybe they shouldn’t vote 85 year olds in for a 6 year term. If she can’t be beat in a primary, then we need something like ranked choice voting so people can safely vote for an alternative third party without risking spoiling the election for a candidate they definitely don’t want.
- Enginerrrd 3y ago
  I'd rather see a proportional system.
  - wolfram74 3y ago
    The problem is first past the post is in the running for the worst way to run a democracy, so basically any reform option would work, and it's hard to get consensus around change.
    - mcphage 3y ago
      Are you saying that First Past the Post won at being First Past the Post? :-)
  - grotorea 3y ago
    (Closed-list) proportional system wouldn't stop an unfit party insider being put at the top of the list.
    - davidw 3y ago
      Proportional has other flaws too, like small parties playing 'kingmaker'. As in: say the two major parties each get 45%, and I run an outfit that got 10%. To have a majority, you're going to have to deal with me, so I'm going to have way more influence than my 10% would warrant. I've seen this happen in the real world in Italy.
  - banannaise 3y ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
All of my political rivals are mentally unfit to serve and I have a physician donor/friend who can attest.
pstuart 3y ago
She held a position of incredible importance (chair of the senate judiciary committee). Her leaving would cause a stalemate and block all judicial nominations. That's a fact, not a guess. She should have left, but the reason she didn't should be happening either.
- steviedotboston 3y ago
  Yeah this is just an unfortunate reality of the situation we're living in today. People think she was on some sort of ego trip by remaining in the senate or something, when really it was just the best option for making sure Biden is able to appoint judges. She was able to get a bunch of them approved recently, we should be thankful for that. People saying stuff like "thank God she's finally gone" are so ignorant. Newsom will appoint a democrat, that democrat will get no meaningful committee appointments, and we'll be in a worse situation than we were.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    The argument we're making is she should have retired twenty years ago, when she was "just" 70 years old.
    - steviedotboston 3y ago
      why should a 70 year old retire if her constituents continue to support her?
      - coldpie 3y ago
        To avoid the whole "walking dead" thing that keeps happening to elderly politicians. I think it is self-evidently bad when the people running the country cannot remember what happened yesterday.
        steviedotboston 3y ago
        Apparently you are in the minority. Her constituents had no problem voting for her in the last election despite her advanced age. They either don't care or value experience over other concerns.
hedora 3y ago
She was also incredibly right wing vs. her constituents and was extremely bought off. She did some civil rights stuff early in her career, but it’s been 100% corruption and destroying the environment for this entire century. She wasn’t senile that entire time. (I’ll quantify right wing: She voted with the Trump administration more than any other democrat, and voted like an average republican senator during his administration.)
- koolba 3y ago
  > (I’ll quantify right wing: She voted with the Trump administration more than any other democrat, and voted like an average republican senator during his administration.) That's nonsense. She voted like every other cookie cutter corporate Democrat, i.e. whatever her handlers told her to do. At the tail end of her career, it was pretty explicit (and disgusting to watch): https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-dianne-feinstein-told-just-say-aye-awkward-senate-committee-moment-rcna96697 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-dianne-feinste... Some stats on here "voting with Trump": https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/ She's clearly not at the top of that pile when sorting by Democrats.
- dekhn 3y ago
  she wasn't right wing, she was centrist.
lenkite 3y ago
80 years should be the absolute upper limit. After that one should really look at relaxing in their final decade.
parineum 3y ago
I've been really surprised by the conversation around this being centered around age when, in my opinion, the controversy should be about a group of staffers exercising the power of a Senator with the tacit backing of the party. There is video/audio of staffers actively teller her what to say and how to vote. The office appears to have usurped her power. Voters aren't being represented by the person they elected. Her staff could just finish out her term and nothing would change but that's illegal because she's dead.

chongli 3y ago

Between her and McConnell and the other gerontocrats in Washington, I’m really baffled. Why do these people grip the reins of power until their knuckles turn white? What is so important about political horse trading that they have to literally haul you out of office on a stretcher?

bhouston 3y ago
Even though I lean left more than right, we should probably also include Biden in that list. That guy is highly managed by his staff.
- cableshaft 3y ago
  This is true of pretty much every high profile figure in Washington. They all have staff that manage a lot of the day to day operations. Could be a bit more true of Biden, I don't know, but I doubt it's significantly more than other high profile figures or other presidents.
  - pauldenton 3y ago
    Trump had handlers. They just wish Trump would do what they said like the other politicians
panax 3y ago
Why does everyone keep reelecting them? Vote for someone else. We also need a better voting system than first past the post.
- iamwpj 3y ago
  It would require voting for the other party. The big issue is the parties being willing to back aging candidates. But of course, party leaders are just as old -- so they see no problem.
  - panax 3y ago
    There's more than two parties. Nobody is forcing you to vote for one of them. Parties are also an anti-pattern. Again we need a better system than first past the post that naturally biases towards a two party system.
    - Lord-Jobo 3y ago
      Party primaries devolve into 'the devil you know vs the devil you dont' and the Devil You Know usually has a boatload of cash to spend on the campaign that the Devil You Dont doesn't have. You are right of course, the solution lies in eliminating the party system and implementing a ranked voting system of some kind. Due to practicality and congressional gridlock, this has to happen state by state, and in many states the 'easiest' method is some sort of ballot initiative. I encourage anyone who reads this to look up the process in their state (https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_ballot_measures_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_ballot_measures_by_state) and at least try to get a signature out to one so they show up on the ballot.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - parineum 3y ago
    Not in California. Feinstein beat Kevin de Leon, a Democrat, in the 2018 general. California runs an open primary and a top two general.
- 3y ago
flenserboy 3y ago
Because then their staff / funders will lose power. The officials themselves are nothing but placeholders.
alistairSH 3y ago
Why do they cling to power? I imagine the personality type that seeks political power in the first place tends to want to keep it. It's good to be the king. At the end of the day, the people continue to elect them. If voters were unhappy with Feinstein's performance (or that of her key aides), the solution was as simple as voting her out. Name recognition is powerful. Seniority leads to leadership of key committees in the US Congress. But, I do agree that this is a problem. RBG was another example - had she retired a few years prior to her death, the state of SCOTUS would be very different today. Was she addicted to the power? Did she truly think nobody younger could do a better job? Same for Feinstein, McConnell, Biden, and many others on both sides of the aisle.
- bhouston 3y ago
  > If voters were unhappy with Feinstein's performance (or that of her key aides), the solution was as simple as voting her out. Often these incompetent people are in "safe seat" regions. Either heavily democrat or republican. Voters won't switch parties just because representative is incompetent. There should be another options.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Feinstein was a Senator and CA uses a "jungle primary" for state-wide elections - there's no "safe seat" in that model. In her last election, both final candidates were Democrats. Neither party could unseat her. Voters have been clear that they preferred Feinstein to anybody else. So the question is why? Was it her power in the Senate? Was she particularly good at bringing pork to CA? Or was it just money and the political machine? Probably a lot of that last item - the parties themselves have incentives to keep winning politicians around - they're good for fund-raising.
    - giantrobot 3y ago
      Rank in Senate committee is literally about seniority. Replacing Feinstein meant the state and Democratic Party losing power in the Senate.
3seashells 3y ago
They are the boomers representative and a demographic auto majority..
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
governmentdude 3y ago
[flagged]
dfxm12 3y ago
First, some places, like in McConnell's case, are just statistically going to go to a particular party, due to demographics (or gerrymandering), and primary elections famously don't draw people to the polls (if there's a challenger at all). California and senate elections are slightly better in that regard, however, look at how much money Feinstein was able to raise over her opponents. This is nothing special about Feinstein, it's an advantage incumbents generally enjoy: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/dianne-feinstein/elections?cid=N00007364&cycle=2022 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/dianne-feins... I think getting this money out of politics is a start to ensuring elections are based on the candidate themselves & their policies and less around how much special interests already have invested in them. I don't have any ideas about how to get more people to show up specifically for primary elections, but the ideas people have around getting more people to vote in general elections could help, like expanding absentee voting, making it a holiday, etc.
paulproteus 3y ago
I can offer one piece of puzzle: the demographics of registered votes has increased significantly. Take a look at "Age and generation" at https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-... . > The U.S. electorate is aging: 52% of registered voters are ages 50 and older, up from 41% in 1996. This shift has occurred in both partisan coalitions. More than half of Republican and GOP-leaning voters (56%) are ages 50 and older, up from 39% in 1996. And among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, half are 50 and older, up from 41% in 1996. > Another way to consider the aging of the electorate is to look at median age. The median age among all registered voters increased from 44 in 1996 to 50 in 2019. It rose from 43 to 52 among Republican registered voters and from 45 to 49 among Democratic registered voters. I think that on average, people consider age significant, so they expect their candidate to be around as old as them. I don't think it's the whole picture, but it helps me feel less baffled at least.
- miohtama 3y ago
  Tyranny of old
  - daveguy 3y ago
    And yet, only 61% of voting age citizens bother to vote. Guess which demographic makes up most of that non-voting 39%.
- xdennis 3y ago
  I think the reason is influence. Older people have accumulated more connections and therefore have more power and influence. Their underlings support them because they lose access to a great influencer in case of removal. It's more difficult for young people to rise up when there's very little influence to be had. However, in times of great upheaval young people tend to rise up much faster as the incompetent people at the top get removed.
layer8 3y ago
Because, like most people, they want to feel they have purpose in their life. Giving up the job is almost like accepting death, especially if they are old.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Bobby Bowden said, "I don't want to retire. After retirement, there's really only one big event left."
  - Clubber 3y ago
    I miss Bobby. Bear Bryant died 4 weeks after he retired.
outside1234 3y ago
I don't understand it either but my theory is this. This is their life. It is literally the only thing they have ever one in one form or another. For many of us this would be like never touching a computer again after turning 65.
mikewarot 3y ago
I'm no fan of the man, but while McConnell may have moments of confusion, but he's still all there. The same was not true of Feinstein.

coldpie 3y ago

Yes, and she's not the only one who is (edit: was) serving without being functional[1]. We need to start talking about upper age limits for public office. I believe it'd require a constitutional amendment, but I expect there's lots of support for it from all sides. I'd suggest 65 as a maximum age for being elected, which means one could serve to about age 71, for a six-year Senate term. [1] This article is from six years ago. https://www3.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2017/10/11/congressional-pharmacy-has-reportedly-delivered-alzheimer-drugs-members-congress/4K2HsLB7YqLXIFDFzyHQxM/story.html https://www3.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2017/10/11/congres...

bhouston 3y ago
Are age limits viable in our aging population? I think they may not work because it would exclude so many people and many voters will be aged as well? I think a low bar competency test would be more viable.
- coldpie 3y ago
  Tests for public participation have a real, real bad history, and for good reason. Age is a simple and objective measure.
  - bhouston 3y ago
    I agree. It is just that people's facilities fall off at different rates, but as others pointed out, it is hard to make an objective test that also can not be gamed.
    - runeofdoom 3y ago
      There's nothing to prevent an older politician from advising their colleagues, serving on committee staffs or even lobbying. They're not prevented from participantion, they'd be prevented from being elected.
    - archontes 3y ago
      It's just that that's not actually really important. The test of a good system is one that admits that its members will retire and adjusts accordingly. In the military, you're always training a replacement, and come 65 (or 68), you're retiring, regardless of your capacity.

hirundo 3y ago

Say we have a professional psychiatrist, or a whole board of them, evaluating the mental competence of candidates. Occasionally they would designate one as incompetent, who would then be removed from the election. This would seem to be less democratic rather than more. The voters have less options than before, so the shift in power is from voters to experts.

bhouston 3y ago
There is no way to make it politically neutral and hard to game? I guess that would lead it to be more biological based? So at least age limits are something everyone can prepare for and expect, rather than it being a surprise?
- ativzzz 3y ago
  > There is no way to make it politically neutral and hard to game? No. Psychiatry, like politics and law, depends much on the personal beliefs of the human in charge. Look at our supreme court. Justices are supposed to be impartial, but they still tend to decide cases based on their political leanings. That's a feature, not a bug, of being human. Do we really want political games around deciding who is fit or unfit for office? I can 100% guarantee that this will cause more shit-slinging from both sides at each other than meaningful action

synergy20 3y ago

There must be age limit for any job, including senators and presidents. Or, test them for physicals and minds before they can take on the job, do it annually, it's a normal practice in all other fields, it's good for all sides.

jliptzin 3y ago

It is how it’s supposed to work. She was 85 when she got elected the last time. If voters don’t want 90 year olds in office, maybe they shouldn’t vote 85 year olds in for a 6 year term. If she can’t be beat in a primary, then we need something like ranked choice voting so people can safely vote for an alternative third party without risking spoiling the election for a candidate they definitely don’t want.

Enginerrrd 3y ago
I'd rather see a proportional system.
- wolfram74 3y ago
  The problem is first past the post is in the running for the worst way to run a democracy, so basically any reform option would work, and it's hard to get consensus around change.
  - mcphage 3y ago
    Are you saying that First Past the Post won at being First Past the Post? :-)
- grotorea 3y ago
  (Closed-list) proportional system wouldn't stop an unfit party insider being put at the top of the list.
  - davidw 3y ago
    Proportional has other flaws too, like small parties playing 'kingmaker'. As in: say the two major parties each get 45%, and I run an outfit that got 10%. To have a majority, you're going to have to deal with me, so I'm going to have way more influence than my 10% would warrant. I've seen this happen in the real world in Italy.
- banannaise 3y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

All of my political rivals are mentally unfit to serve and I have a physician donor/friend who can attest.

pstuart 3y ago

She held a position of incredible importance (chair of the senate judiciary committee). Her leaving would cause a stalemate and block all judicial nominations. That's a fact, not a guess. She should have left, but the reason she didn't should be happening either.

steviedotboston 3y ago
Yeah this is just an unfortunate reality of the situation we're living in today. People think she was on some sort of ego trip by remaining in the senate or something, when really it was just the best option for making sure Biden is able to appoint judges. She was able to get a bunch of them approved recently, we should be thankful for that. People saying stuff like "thank God she's finally gone" are so ignorant. Newsom will appoint a democrat, that democrat will get no meaningful committee appointments, and we'll be in a worse situation than we were.
- coldpie 3y ago
  The argument we're making is she should have retired twenty years ago, when she was "just" 70 years old.
  - steviedotboston 3y ago
    why should a 70 year old retire if her constituents continue to support her?
    - coldpie 3y ago
      To avoid the whole "walking dead" thing that keeps happening to elderly politicians. I think it is self-evidently bad when the people running the country cannot remember what happened yesterday.
      - steviedotboston 3y ago
        Apparently you are in the minority. Her constituents had no problem voting for her in the last election despite her advanced age. They either don't care or value experience over other concerns.

hedora 3y ago

She was also incredibly right wing vs. her constituents and was extremely bought off. She did some civil rights stuff early in her career, but it’s been 100% corruption and destroying the environment for this entire century. She wasn’t senile that entire time. (I’ll quantify right wing: She voted with the Trump administration more than any other democrat, and voted like an average republican senator during his administration.)

koolba 3y ago
> (I’ll quantify right wing: She voted with the Trump administration more than any other democrat, and voted like an average republican senator during his administration.) That's nonsense. She voted like every other cookie cutter corporate Democrat, i.e. whatever her handlers told her to do. At the tail end of her career, it was pretty explicit (and disgusting to watch): https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-dianne-feinstein-told-just-say-aye-awkward-senate-committee-moment-rcna96697 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-dianne-feinste... Some stats on here "voting with Trump": https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/ She's clearly not at the top of that pile when sorting by Democrats.
dekhn 3y ago
she wasn't right wing, she was centrist.

lenkite 3y ago

80 years should be the absolute upper limit. After that one should really look at relaxing in their final decade.

parineum 3y ago

I've been really surprised by the conversation around this being centered around age when, in my opinion, the controversy should be about a group of staffers exercising the power of a Senator with the tacit backing of the party. There is video/audio of staffers actively teller her what to say and how to vote. The office appears to have usurped her power. Voters aren't being represented by the person they elected. Her staff could just finish out her term and nothing would change but that's illegal because she's dead.