• InvaderDJ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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.

    • BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                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.