...while she's suffering from shingles?

She's obviously in contact with her staffers, as well as Dick Durban and Sen. Schumer.

Maybe she'll let us poke at her in person?

Maybe that's the hold up.

I haven't seen pictures of pretty much any of the Senators since then.

When was the last time Sen. Fetterman was seen? When was Blumenthal, who broke his leg in early April, last seen?

He just returned today. Huh, where's the tread calling for him to give it up?

her health so fragile. We are still paying for that.

Hillary in the general election in 2016, and instead either voted for Jill Stein or didn't vote.

Everyone know the Supreme Court was at stake in 2016, and the likes David Sirota, Cornell West, Brianha Joy Gray, Nina Turner, not only refused to vote for Hillary in the general election, but encouraged others to do likewise.

and it didn't take much

In every critical swing state Hillary lost by less than 1%, while in those critical swing states, Jill Stein received 1% of the vote.

This isn't even close to what happened with the Supreme Court after trump was elected.

There are something like twenty nominees currently awaiting floor votes. That delay is not because of Feinstein, and Feinstein is going to be back soon. In the meantime, Feinstein told Schumer if the need arises, to appoint a temporary replacement for her on the judiciary committee.

We also have Manchin and Sinema. Manchin has made declarations that he would have a problem voting on another SC nominee if it was too close to the next Presidential election:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/594196-manchin-would-oppose-on-second-supreme-court-nominee-right-before-midterms/


Fetterman was gone two months, and other Senators have had extended leaves also which has delayed things.

The truth is what happened in 2000 and 2016 has brought us to where we are today, and until we have a massive turnouts at all levels of government, local, state, and federal, we will be hanging on by a thread.

Comey interference (mode-season and late) and awful campaigning, even disregarding the advice of the former President and her spouse.

VOTES. or the lack of it what did it.

Blaming the voters because our candidate failed to inspire them is too tail-wagging-the-dog for me.

critical swing state Hillary lost by less than 1%, while in those same critical swing states Jill Stein received 1% of the vote

As for blame, you are damn right I blame those voters. They helped propel trump into the WH

Hillary wasn’t inspiring? With the help of all the lies and misinformation from the press and the likes of David Sirota, Nina Turner, Brianna Joy West, Cornell West, who not only publicly declared they
would not vote for Hillary, but encouraged others to do likewise

The voters who didn’t vote for Hillary, by either not voting or voting third party, I sure as hell blame them for helping put a racist, bigot, and sexist in the WH, and they got just what they deserved. Unfortunately, MOST Americans didn’t deserve it, and those Americans voted for Hillary

I think you have a legit argument about Michigan. Clinton only needed 21% of Stein's votes. And yet those voters chose Stein over Clinton. Clinton needed to win them over, but failed to do so.

In the other close states that Trump won by under 1%, Clinton needed to pick up 73% of Stein's votes in Wisconsin and almost 89% of Stein's voters in Pennsylvania. That's quite near impossible. Besides the presumptuousness of claiming that those voters somehow owed it to our side to give her a win, I don't see the argument for how this could have turned the tide in those 2 states.

See, in a democracy the leader owes it to the voters to get them to turn out, to motivate the citizens. If you describe a country where the public owes loyalty to the politicians, it isn't democratic. That's an authoritarian feature.

You got the tail you wagged. How'd that all work for you?

I don't get the impression you understood the metaphor. I got the candidate my party nominated and voted and donated and made calls to purple states for her.

Leadership is about thinking strategically and closing the deal with the voters in the right places. This, sadly, didn't happen 7 years ago.

have to do it without sentimentality.

I am guessing that RPG would be the first to admit it was a strategic error.

Now we have two guesses. And no one will ever know.

What we do know is that she was pretty adamant about not wanting to retire.

I am unaware of her ever expressing regret for not resigning before Trump became president. Indeed, before Trump was elected she was quoted as saying "I will retire when it's time. And, when is it time? When I can't do the job full-steam." And after he was elected, she reiterated her intention to stay on the court, stating (in 2018): "I'm now 85. My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so I think I have about at least five more years." And in 2019 she responded to the argument that she should have stepped down years earlier when Obama was president, stating "When that suggestion is made, I ask the question: Who do you think that the President could nominate that could get through the Republican Senate? Who you would prefer on the court (rather) than me?”

Put another way, I don't recall hearing her every suggest it was a strategic error for Thurgood Marshall to retire in June 1991, at age 82, thereby paving the way for Bush to name Clarence Thomas to the Court, even though, with benefit of hindsight, if he had held on until his death in 1993, Clinton would have filled that seat.

The young Ginzburg certainly would, she played hard ball and detested sentimentality.

The older Ginzburg was hoping that it wouldn't turn it into the disaster it did but the statements you quote are a sad attempt to justify a terrible decision. Unlike Stevens she had 5 serious episodes of cancer. Bravo on her courage to fight but she put the seat at risk and she lost. Besides the 5 serious bouts of cancer she had circulatory problems as well.

She had very serious cancer twice before Obama with the Democratic Senate could have nominated and confirmed a young rising Ginzburg and liberals at the time begged her not to take the risk.

If her cancers were "near fatal" she must have had super human powers. During treatment for her first cancer, she didn't miss a day on the bench. Her second cancer, ten years later, was diagnosed in early February. She was back at work before the end of the month.

You are absolutely wrong to suggest that she was unable to perform her job full time during the period you claim she should have retired. Her health was fine from 2009 through 2014 (indeed, it was fine through 2018). She didn't miss a single oral argument during those years and maintained a very active speaking schedule. It was entirely reasonable for her to remain on the bench. Yes she had a recurrence in 2018, but the first time in her career that she missed an oral argument was in 2019; she was back at work less than month later having missed only six days of oral arguments. And, of course, by that point, she had every reason to think and hope that she be able to serve until after the 2020 election and, hopefully, a Democrat was in the White House.

I got to know her a bit during lawschool, when she was my professor in my Constitutional Law class and in a smaller Gender Discrimination class. This is before she became a judge. She was hard-nosed then and nothing about her suggested that she was into second guessing anything. But, as I said, no one can speak for the dead. Not me. Not you.

One nit. If you're going to post about Ginsburg, at least try to spell her name correctly.

Yes, she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009, but it was caught at an early stage -- she was out of the office for ten days. It wasn't until 2018 that her cancer returned and it was another two years before she died.

While some people, with the benefit of hindsight, believe she should have retired in 2012 or 2013 (apparently those people had advance notice that the Repubs would take control of the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016) -- or maybe even before that, when she was in her 70s (she was 75 when Obama was first elected). No one ever complains that Thurgood Marshall didn't retire before the 1980 election (when he was in his 70s and the Democrats controlled the Senate). He didn't do so and then he ended retiring in 1991, giving us Clarence Thomas. I have hear complaints that he shouldn't have retired at that time and waited until after 1992 election, which would have ended up with Clinton replacing him. Seems like a double standard.

The survival of our democracy and the lives of millions of Americans mandate that we make the right decisions.

Thanks for your courage Cyrano.

His hands haven't been on board for three months. Feinstein has been absent for one month.

If Feinstein can't come back in fairly short order from her illness, she should step down. But she should have the same opportunity to recover and return to her active participation in the Senate that has been accorded -- correctly -- to other members who have suffered illness during their term.

This is an apples and oranges argument, so I won't bite.

He missed most of the first three months of the current terms and was hospitalized for over five weeks for clinical depression, a condition he acknowledges he has suffered from off and on throughout his life. I hope he won't need to step away again at some point during the next five years, but the possibility that he might need to do so cannot be dismissed out of hand. Notwithstanding that possibility, he should be given the opportunity to return to work and continue to work if and when that happens.

We don't know that much about Feinstein's current condition. She was hospitalized in late February/early March for around ten days for shingles, a condition that can take as much as six weeks to recover from. She has indicated that while she hoped to be back this week, she has been advised to take some additional time. She should be given the same opportunity to recover that Fetterman was given.

What should be done about that?

are politically driven bullshit originated by people who don't have any actual information.

only has a small case of the Shingles.

Correct?

she has carried out her duties as a Senator. Before her shingles diagnosis, she attended Judiciary Committee executive sessions and cast what might be considered deciding votes on nominees and other matters (something that was particularly important on February 2 when the Committee was down one member because of the absence of Sen. Welch, leaving the Democrats with only 10 members present and voting). During the Senate's sessions on January 23 and February 2, she introduced and made statements in support of a number of bills (See Congressional Record for those dates). From January 3 until February 27, she missed only two Senate votes -- compare that to Bernie Sanders (3 missed votes for unexplained reasons; Sen. Bob Casey (10 missed votes due to his treatment for prostate cancer), and Sen. John Fetterman (9 missed votes prior to February 27, then missed every vote from that date through end of March when Congress went on recess). Casey and Fetterman were given the opportunity to return from illness-related absences without being hounded to resign. Feinstein is entitled to the same, at least for a month or two. If she still can't return at that point she should step down.

As for whether her case of shingles is "small", I'm not her doctor and have no way or knowing the severity of her case of shingles and the timetable for her recovery apart from her statements that she intends to return.

You don't know either.

Correct?

Uh huh, sure it is.

This is exactly how I have been feeling.
Thank You

It’s just the opposite.

It’s about someone who knows that they can’t get elected next November but if they can get her to retire they can get a powerful seat for life.

And they’re obviously getting desperate

all interested parties, but that would have required political skills that seem to be lacking in that league of newbies.

if they could get Barbara Boxer to come out of retirement only long-enough to finish Feinstein's term?

(Personally, I thought between the two of them, the wrong one retired)

It's the perfect answer.

And yes, definitely the wrong one retired.

I wouldn't know, having stopped listening to him nearly a decade ago.

Or any other democrat who pledges not to run for reelection (assuming Feinstein is willing)

But it won’t happen… because this isn’t really about her vote on Judiciary

Democracy is at literally at stake. We need to fill as many judicial seats as possible, and fill them quickly.

A lot of us knew that someone in their mid-80s running for a six-year term of a crucial elected position in a closely divided governing body was NOT a good idea. After a long and distinguished career, at some point you should be able to put your ambitions aside for a much, much more important cause. And saying so doesn't diminish Sen. Feinstein's long career and public service.

Some people are screaming "ageism!" about a person who is almost NINETY. ... FFS, let's get a grip on reality here.

Posters in your position seem to believe that there are an unlimited number of judicial slots that can be filled - so every missed day represents one or more lost judges come 2025.

But that simply isn’t the case. We haven’t lost a single judge due to the senator’s absence and there’s no reason to believe that we’ll fill even one fewer seat unless she’s absent for several months.

Great advise. When you going to take it?

I don't care who wants the seat or why. I just want my rights defended. I vote for and donate to Democrats with the expectation that EVERYTHING will be done to defend our values / rights.

I'm not sure what the disconnect is, but I can only assume that the people who feel the least sense of urgency aren't at risk of having their uteruses commandeered by the US government. I

They tried the temporary replacement thing, and it didn't work. We do NOT need to waste capital working out a deal with traitorous rethugs.

Feinstein needs to step down and she needs to do it now. It should not have even come to this point where we have to demand her ouster. She should have done the right thing herself without needing to hear this. What a damn shame. SMH.

not referring to Adam Schiff.

I presume he’s the frontrunner to replace her through the electoral process (he’s certainly well ahead in the cash primary). He also has almost zero chance of being selected by Newsom unless he’s already effectively the nominee when the seat opens up.

One could even see the “Feinstein must resign now for the good of democracy!!” BS as an explicitly anti-Schiff move.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-california-senate-barbara-lee-katie-porter-adam-schiff-trump-1234682239/amp/

Last edited Sun Apr 16, 2023, 08:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Sen. Feinstein deserves far greater respect than the ongoing rubbishing she's taking here on DU from some quarters.

Wow! It is so wrong!!!

The facts present a much different picture -- one that rebuts the claim her absence has caused any material harm to the confirmation of Biden nominees.

There will be a couple more putsch attempts between now and then, but then we’ll have a nominee.

Once that happens, the political aspirations of our mystery wannabe senator will end and calls for her immediate retirement will fade away

are being pushed here. It's quite revealing who has missed votes and gotten a complete pass.

campaigns surrounding this issue.

It's shameful what is happening, but very transparent. I only had to hear the California congressman's name to know that smears and disinformation were coming. You've put him to shame, and that is an elected official out there doing media blitzes trying to take a senate seat away from voters.

I'm hoping there is some way to pin your posts --- maybe with an OP you could start...? This type of continued distortion about the timeline of her absence is quite shady.

referring to? Say the name.

Thank you for all your informative posts. I always enjoy reading them.

they're needed to keep attention on an important issue.

Feinstein had a great run, now she's tarnishing the good she did. Same as others who held on too long.

She came down with an illness that kept her away from the Senate for one month. During the two months that preceded her illness, she missed only two votes out of 24 -- a better record than Fetterman, Sanders, and Casey. She stood on the Senate floor and introduced bills. Leading up to 2023 -- the final 9 months of 2022 -- she missed only 2 votes out of nearly 300. During the 117th Congress she was the primary sponsor of as many bills as many of her colleagues -- Ron Wyden to name just one -- and she was able to get more of those bills passed by the Senate than many of her colleagues.

Even her absence for the month of March hasn't had any significant impact -- 14 Biden judicial nominees were confirmed. Moreover, before she contracted shingles she was present for Judiciary Committee meetings and thus made it possible for 20 more nominees to be approved at the Committee level -- nominees that are still waiting for Schumer to bring them to the floor for reasons that have nothing to do with Feinstein being unavailable.

without people having to beg her too. I admire your passion, but it seems you're taking the comments personally and don't seem to realize that most of us respect and admire Sen Feinstein and her accomplishments. We're on the SAME TEAM. But when DiFi is dead and gone, many of us who are 5 to 8 decades younger will (hopefully) still be here. We will have to deal with the fallout from the hundreds of right wing judges on the bench, just like we're dealing with the overturning of Roe vs Wade.

The truth is, anyone else (except for Grassley) would have retired by now and tried to enjoy more time with family and friends. Unfortunately, her inability to read the room is the biggest evidence yet that it's time to retire. There is still time to retire with dignity and a pristine reputation, but not much more time. Every news show I've watched recently has touched on this topic. Right now it's just gentle questions but it's going to turn into open anger soon.

...and she's working from home while recovering from shingles.

It's despicable how poeple with political agendas have glommed onto these rumors in order to attack her politically while she's down.

It's dirty politics, no matter what righteousness you wrap it in.

What work do you think she's doing from home?

And she isn’t the only senator who has missed time.

It’s isn’t as though there are scores of judicial votes due up in the coming weeks

...tell us.

Make sure you tell us how consequential those votes were.

Senators do much more than just vote. Otherwise, why do we pay them for the rest of their time in office?

I'm not going to make a serious effort with unserious questions.

What work did Fetterman do from home? He couldn't vote.

“Productive morning with Senator Fetterman at Walter Reed discussing the rail safety legislation, Farm Bill and other Senate business,” the politician’s top aide, Adam Jentleson, captioned the images of the ailing 53-year-old politician.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/06/fetterman-hard-at-work-in-first-pics-since-hospitalization/

...neither you or the person asked.

You're parroting something you read in an article and you don't even have a clue who the actual people are that are involved, who is willing to vote for them , and just which nomination is so critical that we need to run a sitting Senator out of town.

This is a really badly orchestrated attack and it's like stabbing someone with a blunt object. This is as ugly as it gets because almost every one of her critics can't be bothered to even name ONE person that Feinstein is supposedly holding back.

Such a sham. It's not about judiciary nominees, because they can't vote them in faster than the committee can spit them out. It's really just about running the Senator out of the Senate because, politics.

The phony platform of rumors that critics are standing on is as damaging to the party as anything Feinstein is doing by being ill, but it looks as if you folks want to keep going until you raise so much of a stink that all of the focus is on the Senator, instead of on the issues and legislation you all say concerns you so.

The worst is taking the word of rumormongering neews articles instead of trusting in Sen. Feinstein. Clearly you're more aligned with a handful of gossipy reports than with our Democratic Senator, but you're presenting this as some kind of virtue. It's just tawdry and anti-Democrat.

I don't expect reporters to have enough interest to support Democrats, but I really don't understand any Democrat following their lead over Sen. Feinstein's word in this attempt to take her down.

...even Durbin isn't saying this is about some current problem.

“We still have some nominees left on the calendar that we can work on … But we have more in the wings that we would like to process through the committee,” Durbin said.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/10/politics/biden-judges-senate-blue-slips-absences/index.html

also Axios:

"Even if Republicans don't acquiesce to replacing Feinstein, that doesn't stop Democrats from confirming nearly 20 judicial nominees already advanced out of Judiciary, noted Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

"This all seems a bit premature," he told Axios, "given how many judicial nominees are sitting on the executive calendar. It'll take the Senate a while ... to get through everyone who has already been voted out of committee."

Many of the nominees still before the committee could garner enough GOP support to not be affected, according to a source familiar with the process, who said just a handful of party-line appointments are at risk."
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/13/dems-substitute-feinstein-judiciary-committee

The fact that there are 20 nominees which have advanced out of committee and have not yet been voted on is because it is not an instantaneous process of moving out of committee and being voted on by the senate. That process takes time.

In the past 7 or so weeks there has been a single nominee advanced, assuming the Newsweek and Axios stories are correct. That means that when she returns, there will be a similar gap in the ability of the senate to approve nominees because there has only been a single nominees advanced out of committee in that time frame.

As far as "many of the nominees" being able to garner enough GOP support not to be affected - that is specifically the question I tried to answer. Out of the 25 nominees voted on, a single one was able to garner enough GOP support to advance out of committee.

There are in fact three processes that follow in sequence but not always on the same clock.

Obviously, we saw with TFG that nomination - committee vote - floor vote can be quite quick. The nominee doesn’t “get in line” behind others jammed in the process.

Feinstein would have to be absent for several more months before there would be an impact on the total number of confirmed judges for this term… and I don’t see anyone calling for resignations over delays in the other two parts of the appointment chain.

Inability to get a floor vote (getting jammed up on the floor). There is no opportunity to get jammed up on the floor if the nominees are not reaching the floor.

If they are not nominated (which is not an issue), they can't get o the committee. Harris is available to cast the tiebreaking vote (so that is not an issue).

But right now, nominees are not making it out of committee. If the reports are accurate, 24 of 25 nominees on whom votes were taken were not passed out of committee. That inherently means that there will be a dearth of nominees for the Senate to vote on until the committee is able to process nominees.

Is that Newsweek has indicated that there were votes on 25 judicial nomimees in Feinstein's absence, and that the Axios article indicated that 1 nominee has been voted out of committee during the time she has been absent, and that if those reports are accurate votes on 24 nominees failed.

Those are the only two sources I found which detailed the nature of the votes and how many nominees had been voted out of committee during her absence. The remainder of the sources just cited the number of votes she has missed - which is irrelevant unless the outcome of those missed votes would have been different in her presence.

If you want to add Feinstein as an issue to floor votes, that makes her absence a double challenge (while the other senators only pose a problem when it comes to the floor votes).

… is any reason to believe that there will be even one fewer judge confirmed due to her temporary absence.

Even a concern about the number of nominees available for floor votes is misguided - because the majority of senate confirmation votes don’t come out of the judiciary committee in the first place. If a handful of judges are delayed, the senate can just focus on other confirmable positions to shift available slots to judges later in the year.

The correct number is 18 waiting on the floor of the senate for a vote out of 35 nominated positions... leaving on 17 waiting in committee (many due to "blue slips" that her presence can't help).

IOW - there are only a handful of judicial nominees (10?) who have had committee votes delated due to her absence (some also due to Durbin's absence) - with the longest being about a dozen senate days. Much ado about not very much.


Newsweek has indicated that there were votes on 25 judicial nominees in Feinstein's absence

Those were not judiciary committee votes that caused a nominee to be rejected or held up. They were floor votes and they were confirmed without her presence.

You can't, because there haven't been any. Indeed, 14 nominees were confirmed from the end of February until the Senate went on recess on March 31. Feinstein wasn't there to vote for them. But guess what, in every instance, at least two and as many as four other Democrats weren't available to vote either. Yet, the confirmations passed.

There are nearly 20 nominations that were approved by the Judiciary Committee before Feinstein became ill but that haven't been put to the Senate for a vote. That's not her fault.

She is entitled to the same opportunity to return from her illness as other members are being given or have been given in the past. If she can't return in a relatively short time frame, and if her spot on Judiciary Committee can't be filled temporarily, then she should consider stepping down. But for now, her absence has not had a material impact on the confirmation of judicial appointments.

the judiciary for a vote before that, to put in a temporary replacement to fill that spot if needed.

This is just an excuse for some who never cared for Feinstein to exploit her absence, and the media and republicans love it.

Because that would require a full vote of the Senate, needing 60 votes to break the filibuster.

A couple dozen, IIRC, and they won’t be confirmed as long as she is out. I thought I read there were also some more stuck in committee from a previous round.

She knows better than me if she needs to resign or not. If she feels she doesn’t need to resign then I trust her judgement.

and the truth is that RBG should have retired after Obama won his second term.
just my view - the whole is bigger than the individuals.

They've been pending since before Feinstein became ill at the end of February.

He made a nomination last week to the 5th circuit … for a slot that was triggered over a year ago.

If a few weeks’ delay in getting slots filled is a threat to democracy itself… why aren’t we hearing calls for the president to move faster?

Anyone appointed to replace her on the committee has to be approved by the full senate, which would require 60 votes to break a filibuster.

Instead of making up bullshit about her absence having prevented judicial nominations from being confirmed (it hasn't) or that she hasn't been able to do her job for some time (she missed two votes out of over 290 cast during April 2022 to January 2023 and was the primary sponsor of more than a dozen bills that passed the Senate during the last Congress.

Needed judges if she doesn’t come back or resign. And you need 60 votes in the Senate if she steps down from the committee. If the GOP gets those judges since we have a tough map in 24 her legacy would be greatly diminished.

IF she doesn't come back, she should resign. But a lot of posters don't want to wait to see if she comes back any time soon. They want her to resign whether or not she's capable of coming back. They don't want to accord her the same opportunity to recover that has been accorded other Senators who have missed time because of illness.

If she were still out a year from now (without replacement on the committee) there would be such an effect - but that’s wild speculation.

A delay of another month… or two… or three does not plausibly lead to “losing badly needed judges”. What it could lead to is a clear frontrunner in the race to replace her (likely Schiff or Porter) and a growing presumption that Newsom should appoint that person if Feinstein steps aside.

Someone can’t afford to wait a few months to let an old warhorse recover (while conspicuously not calling for the same thing with Fetterman). But their excuses for urgency make no sense and are (at best) unseemly.

number of people would call Senator Feinstein a true American patriot. I would agree. The truly patriotic thing to do at his point in her career would be to step away now. I would like to continue to believe that unlike Repugs, Democrats really do put country over party and power.

Thank you so much.

An average outbreak of shingles does not land someone in the hospital, for weeks or months, or medical care at home. There can be critical complications that affect the brain, liver and other major organs.

Sen. Feinstein is of advanced age, so I wouldn't be surprised if she's suffering from a serious bout, that is attacking other areas.

However, if she's recovering according to her doctor's timeline, there's no reason she can't return to fulfill her duties.

I'm not counting her out.

She was diagnosed in late February and was out of the hospital by March 7. As you indicate, at present there is no indication that she won't be returning to work within a reasonable time period. What is a reasonable time period? Hard to say, but no one seems bothered (and they shouldn't seem bothered) that Sen. Fetterman was absent for almost three months, not counting the spring recess (Feinstein has missed one month, not counting the spring recess)

beg to differ. Where did you get your medical degree? My sisters shingles took her out for 18 weeks.

he will be 86 at the end of his second term, only 3 years younger than Feinstein is now.

I hate to say it, but seeing how Feinstein is unable to do the job now, and is unwilling to step aside, and is hurting the nation because of it, may impact voters in 2024. I don't know what the answer is, but it's something that should be considered. We can't just keep saying "that's ageism, be ashamed of yourself" and blah blah blah. You can yell at people on DU and shame them into not posting, but when it comes time to go to the ballot box, people can vote however they like, or not vote at all if they don't feel confident about a candidate.

And I am concerned about Biden's age just like Feinstein's. Sorry. I said it.

is she hurting the nation? And yes, people can vote like they want. And California voted for DF. So, there's that. Maybe a few facts would help ease the unwarranted panic.

That said, not everybody hits 86 or 89 with the same faculties. This is about individual abilities, not about someone's precise age.

With Feinstein it's clearly an issue. There were similar coverups with Strom Thurmond and I'm pretty sure Charles Grassley isn't at the top of his game. Part of the addiction to power that runs our Republic includes the continuation in office of people who probably should have been termed out years ago.

Not to say that mental infirmity is the worst sin afflicting our democracy.

are the same ones that were declaring that McConnell had a stroke, was brain dead, or even actually dead. He returned to the Senate, looking relatively healthy less than six weeks after he suffered his injury.

Are California voters, everyone else is just running their mouth.