1054
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] InvaderDJ@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago

She was a public servant that worked for a long time on your behalf.

She worked a long time and was obviously better than the GOP, but staying on for so long was at best a lack of vision and at worse an egotistical decision that will bite us in the ass. All these geriatric ass politicians who don't mentor, grow the bench with the next generation, and retire when it is time to are leading us to the situation. This is going to end up being RBG all over again.

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

RBG all over again

This is peanuts compared to RBG. Feinstein refusing to retire will lead to some inconvenience in the senate and the judiciary committee. RBG refusing to retire fucked the Supreme Court for decades to come.

[-] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Blame the Senate Committe Seniority system.

Seniority in the United States Senate is based on the length of time a senator serves on a committee. The majority party member with the most seniority on a committee usually serves as the chair.

That is the only reason to keep sending these people back as old as they are. You send someone new, they have zero power.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No. The second-most senior one from the same party would become the most senior and take over. There's no good reason for her staying on 15+ years too long.

[-] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That would be from a different state and then that state would lose the power of having a senior committee member.

There is a reason Senator Robert Byrd was the longest-serving U.S. Senator. Serving three different tenures as chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations enabled Byrd to steer a great deal of federal money toward projects in West Virginia.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

We're talking about California here. If any state isn't starved of power and dependant on federal money, it's California.

[-] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Feinstein was on the following committees. You don't think she pushed California's interests in every one.

  • Committee on Appropriation

  • Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

  • Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

  • Subcommittee on Defense

  • Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development (Chairman)

  • Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

  • Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

  • Committee on Rules and Administration

  • Committee on the Judiciary

  • Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Counterterrorism

  • Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights

  • Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law

  • Subcommittee on the Constitution (Chairman)

  • Select Committee on Intelligence

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thats WAY too many committees for any one politician, let alone one clearly circling the drain!

To answer your question though, no she wasn't. She was literally unable to do the job and they'd known for years.

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

She was a piece of shit freedom hater, one of the worst Senators ever. Good riddance to that old bag.

[-] InvaderDJ@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I honestly don't know a lot about her so I don't know what you're referring to. I assume gun rights?

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

That plus carte blanche approval of all forms of warrantless mass surveillance, violations of our 4th Amendment rights, being a pro-corporate oligarchy puppet etc

I mean this isn’t wrong. She was one of the votes against the proposal of members of congress being banned from owning stocks.

[-] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

No wonder, she consistently outperformed the best traders on wall street. I wonder how she managed that?

this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
1054 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19088 readers
1976 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS