I fear Dianne Feinstein’s resignation from the Senate more than her staying put | Opinion

Dianne Feinstein has become a painfully sad spectacle, being wheeled through the Capitol as she so visibly struggles to perform the basic duties of a United States senator. She has joined the ranks of formidable leaders who stayed in office too long.

Yet at this point, I fear her resignation more than I fear her remaining in office.

Since Feinstein effectively became the decisive vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee after the 2020 election, the window for her to resign without potential consequences to the judicial system was closed. Republicans blocked efforts to replace Feinstein temporarily after a recent hospitalization as they would now if she retired. The politics of maintaining a razor-thin majority on a committee that forwards President Joe Biden’s judicial nominations to the full Senate has an undeniable impact on the future governance of the U.S. Supreme Court. They dictate why establishment Democrats fall in line behind Feinstein despite her frail condition.

Opinion

These high stakes are also why Feinstein should make every effort to stay, even as it becomes more painful to behold with each passing day.

Only Feinstein is certain to keep her spot on the judiciary committee for the remainder of this term, which gives the Democrats an 11-10 advantage.

But something far more lasting and important may be on the horizon to further bolster the political case for keeping Feinstein in office, namely the potential for a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of the repeated failures of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to disclose various gifts from billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow of Texas.

As reported by ProPublica, Thomas went on luxury trips around the globe for two decades paid for by Crow, who also paid for Thomas’ grandnephew to attend a private school, and he purchased a family property where Thomas’ mother has long lived rent-free. Thomas failed to disclose all of this during periodic filings of financial activities required by Supreme Court justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts has referred the matter to an unnamed committee of a Judicial Conference that he meets with twice a year. Essentially the Supreme Court is allowed to police itself. It would take the legislative and executive branches to agree on how to change that. And the reform would start with a functioning Senate Judiciary Committee.

Thomas’ penchant for accepting gifts would undoubtedly be the backdrop of a committee investigation. And given that Crow has contributed to various Republican members of the committee, hearings would be replete with the patina of modern partisan politics. But the underlying questions of transparency and enforcement are not partisan. Are the current disclosure requirements, enforcement mechanisms and potential sanctions sufficient for all existing and future Supreme Court justices?

None of these questions can be raised without Feinstein staying in the Senate so long as the Republicans do not give her a clear path to resign with dignity and keep the business of a full committee running.

It comes down to the arcane rules and math of the Senate. It could take 60 votes to replace Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer had floated the idea of temporarily replacing her, but it was shot down by the opposition.

Meanwhile, the images and utterances of Feinstein in recent days all but erase three decades of memories of her as a fierce and vital leader. She, California and the nation’s Democratic Party are now trapped by her fateful decision in 2018 to run for a fifth term when she was 85 years old.

Her 90th birthday is June 22.

Feinstein must attempt to perform the duties of her office for the Senate to function at this crucial time in the nation’s judicial history, though this time span could be short.

With her decision to run for re-election and of a majority of California voters to keep her in the Senate, we have collectively set in motion this tortured final chapter.