She’s not dead yet, merely embalmed a la Ginsberg, but the end of Diane Feinstein’s twenty-eight-year reign of Marxist Feminism is approaching.
After criticism, Sen. Feinstein will not seek leadership role on Judiciary Committee
By AP, 23 November 2020
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Monday she will step down from her role as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, giving up the powerful spot after public criticism of her bipartisan outreach and her handling of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings.
Notice the headline of this article was, shall we say, “gently phrased”.
Feinstein, 87, said in a statement that she would not seek the position in the next Congress. She did not say why, but said she would instead focus on wildfire and drought issues and the effects of climate change, which are important in her home state.
“I’m leaving to spend more time with my family,” is what Republicans say in this situation.
She plans to continue to serve on the Judiciary, Appropriations and intelligence panels, but said she will not seek the role of top Democrat on any of those committees.
“I will continue to do my utmost to bring about positive change in the coming years,” she said in the statement. She has held the post since 2017.
Feinstein, first elected in 1992, has been a powerful force in the Democratic Party and is the former chairwoman of the intelligence panel. She has not shied from bipartisanship even as both parties have become increasingly polarized.
Oh, come on. That “bipartisanship” only ever went one way.
Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court, is already under attack by left-wing politicians and activists, but the outpouring of support for Barrett is also surfacing, including a professor of law at her alma mater, the University of Notre Dame.
O. Carter Snead wrote an oped in the Washington Post on Saturday titled, “I’ve known Amy Coney Barrett for 15 years. Liberals Have Nothing to Fear.”
You might notice that Snead was discussed in my previous post, advocating a new bioethics for making the totalitarian Plandemic permanent despite whether it’s technically justifiable.
In his op-ed, Snead shared his experience with Barrett’s humanity, including while she was a professor at Notre Dame:
“A few years ago, a blind student matriculated as a first-year law student at Notre Dame. Upon arrival, she encountered delays in getting the technological support she needed to carry out her studies. After only a few days in Barrett’s class, the student asked her for advice. Barrett’s response was “This is no longer your problem. It is my problem.” Barrett followed up with university administration herself, got the student what she needed, and then mentored her for three years. That student just completed her service as the first blind female Supreme Court clerk in U.S. history.”
— Matt Mackowiak (@MattMackowiak) September 26, 2020
Care-based morality. Virtue-signaling.
Snead began his commentary by noting that many of his “progressive friends” are undone by having a conservative woman replace a revered liberal judge.
“She was appointed by DRUMPF!!!!”
“But I have known Barrett as a friend and colleague for more than 15 years,” Snead wrote. “And I can assure worried liberals that there is nothing about the prospect of a Justice Barrett that should cause them to fear.”
Snead then detailed the things liberals should not fear, including her intellect: “She has an incandescent mind that has won the admiration of colleagues across the ideological spectrum.”
Moreover, Snead cited Barrett’s “remarkable” humility. Snead wrote:
Time and again, I have seen her gently reframe a colleague’s arguments to make them stronger, even when she disagreed with them. And she is not afraid to change her own mind in the search for the truth, as I have seen in several of our faculty seminars. Such open-mindedness is exactly what we want of our judges — and what we can expect Barrett to bring to the Supreme Court, because that is who she has always been.
Snead also claimed — despite the attacks by some, including members of the U.S. Senate — that there is “no need to fear Barrett’s faith.”
“To the contrary, her commitment to treating others with respect grows directly out of her religious convictions,” Snead wrote.
And Snead noted a remark about Barrett by someone from Ginsburg’s chamber.
[They] affirmed that Barrett is ‘not at all ideological’ and believes that she will ‘try as hard as anyone can to bracket the views she has as she decides cases,’” Snead wrote.
That’s a lot of red flags for ACB. So, the insiders vetted her and decided that she’d be acceptable for Team Feminist. Feinstein proceeded to pretend bipartisanship. But in the process, she got viewed by her people’s extremists as
TRUMP SUPPORTER! Swarm swarm swarm!
That tension came to a head at the hearings for Barrett, when Feinstein closed out the proceedings with an embrace for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., publicly thanking the chairman for a job well done. Democrats had fiercely opposed Barrett’s nomination to replace the late liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Democrats not including Feinstein.
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, has expressed interest in the Judiciary post. Durbin is third in seniority after Feinstein and Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, who is expected to remain as top Democrat on the powerful Appropriations committee.
A spokeswoman for Durbin did not have immediate comment. But his office has said there is nothing in Democratic caucus rules that blocks him form serving in his leadership post and also as the top Democrat on Judiciary.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett stood up to hostile questioning on Wednesday morning by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) about her dissent in the Kanter v. Barr case last year, after he falsely claimed that she had described the right to vote as “secondary.”
Durbin began by challenging Barrett’s claim to follow the text of the law and the Constitution. “You style yourself an originalist, textualist, factualist, whatever the term is,” he said, before asking her if the president could, theoretically, delay the election.
Barrett cited the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, but said that she could not answer hypothetical questions.
Durbin then tried turning to Barrett’s dissent in Kanter. He implied that Barrett had done a poor job the day before in explaining her opinion, referring to her responses to questions from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) about her view of voting rights — “in an attempt to rehabilitate the witness,” Durbin sneered.
Kanter was a case involving a convicted non-violent felon challenging a law that prevented him from owning a firearm.
As Breitbart News has previously explained in a fact check, while both the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and the Fourteenth Amendment right to vote are fundamental, the text of the latter explicitly allows states to limit the right.
In her dissent in Kanter, Barrett cited existing precedents — including D.C. v. Heller (2008) — that define the right to keep and bear arms as an “individual” right, while the right to vote or to serve on a jury is a “civic” right.
So, Durbin is “considering” the role with the approval of the Trump Derangement crowd.
“This has been one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in,” Feinstein said at the end of the hearing.
Those actions put her immediately in the crosshairs of some influential liberals who had been questioning for some time whether she was right for the job.
“It’s time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee,” said Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, which opposes conservative nominees to the courts. “If she won’t, her colleagues need to intervene.”
ACB isn’t conservative even by the Left’s own people so this is totally about TDS.
Feinstein also irked some of her fellow Democrats at Barrett’s first confirmation hearing, in 2017 for an appeals court, when she said that Barrett’s opposition to abortion must be rooted in her religion and questioned if it would influence her rulings on the bench, saying the “dogma lives loudly within you.”
Republicans seized on the phrase, saying it was offensive to Catholics. The backlash helped Barrett rise in the ranks of Supreme Court hopefuls.
Some Leftists still consider themselves Catholic. Well, Protestantism isn’t hurrying to clean up its own messes, either.
In a statement, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said he was “grateful for Senator Feinstein’s leadership and contributions to our caucus and country” in the Judiciary post.
Feinstein’s “experience, decades-long relationship with President-elect Biden, and leadership on so many issues will continue to be an asset for our caucus, California, and the country as we begin a new term with the new president,” said Schumer, D-N.Y.
And the horse you rode in on. I don’t fancy Feinstein’s reelection chances the next time around.
Doesn’t it suck to have your name on a list, Diane? Especially when you’ve done nothing to deserve being on the list in the first place?