News: A confused Dianne Feinstein tried to give a speech in the middle of a Senate hearing vote and was told to 'just say aye' instead
News: A confused Dianne Feinstein tried to give a speech in the middle of a Senate hearing vote and was told to 'just say aye' instead
"Just say aye," Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Patty Murray repeatedly pleaded to Feinstein during the vote. Eventually, Feinstein did just that.
"Just say aye," Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Patty Murray repeatedly pleaded to Feinstein during the vote. Eventually, Feinstein did just that.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday appeared confused and attempted to deliver a longer speech during a Senate hearing, the latest in a string of episodes that have raised further questions about her ability to continue serving in office.
"Just say aye," Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Patty Murray repeatedly pleaded with her colleague.
Instead of a short reply, Feinstein began her response by saying, "I would like to support a yes vote on this, it provides $823 billion ...." As the California Democrat continued to speak, an aide also intervened to try to remind the lawmaker that this was not the time for speeches.
"OK," Feinstein then said as Murray reminded her one final time to "just say aye." "Aye," she finally said.
[article continues]
You're viewing a single thread.
@Drusas Someone close to Feinstein needs to talk to her and make her understand how badly she is embarrassing herself and doing a dis-service to her constituents, the caucus, and the country at this point
Actually there needs to be an overhaul of the system, either age limit on senate, house and presidency which I agree with, or an independent medical examiner/s verifying they are mentally capable of carrying out duties (this wouldn't work and is too open to corruption).
Just don't let people serve after 60. It even works to reduce generational thinking that infects government policy.
@Emu I'm over 60 and still have all my faculties, I can assure you. Thirty-plus years ago, it was hard for me to imagine what I would be like at 60 but its actually not different, at least from the life of the mind perspective. I think your position is ageist and is itself generational thinking. Nevertheless, I have favored term limits for many years, including when I was young. The 25th Amendment was enacted and ratified to address Presidential incapacity after President Wilson became mentally incapacitated and his wife took over the office when no one was legally able to remove him.
It’s not just the loss of brain white matter and myelin with age, it’s also the “generational thinking” that the parent eluded to at the end of their post.
The world has changed radically from the time that you (or I) went through our formative years. We may still perform cognitively, but eventually our software is from an obsolete and bygone era, and we must admit that we’re just not in tune with the more contemporary zeitgeist.
It happens with every generation. Science has a saying for it: that it progresses one funeral at a time, because established ideas must physically die with their owners to make space for disruptive thinking.
Henry Ford used to disallow “beat practices” in his factories because he wanted new guys to repeat the same failed ideas and experiments that had been tried before, without being discouraged to do so. The practical reason is that the world changes, and things that were brushed off as not working some 20 years ago can suddenly start working due to a context change.
A generation lasts 20–30 years, and yet in politics it lasts 40–60 years. Those dinosaurs in politics have no actual grasp of how the rest of the world has evolved around them. They don’t understand tech, or climate issues, or academic inflation, etc. They still apply recipes from a bygone era in which they were actually skillful and successful policymakers, but that era ended long ago.
So you have a problem with ageism? So then why is president restricted to being above 35? Oh right, now you have an issue yeah? There needs to be age limits, because society goes forwards in progress, not backwards, not because of your insecurities around your own age. Don't worry, you'll never be president.
@Emu Dude, you are projecting your insecurities onto me. The minimum ages are for people who haven’t grown up enough to handle the responsibilities of the situation, President, driving, gun ownership are examples. For the record, I don’t want to be President. I have done enough policy work in my career to have an informed view. Also, I know what I don’t know, which is an insight sorely lacking in people who haven’t grown up yet. The problem with being older isn’t that your views become rigid or your brain goes soft, it’s that your body wears out. Otherwise, I quite like where I am in life thank you very much
Any sort of neuropsych evaluation is most likely not objective enough, and could be discriminatory. For example, against autistics, or for them. No need to have that value judgement discussion.
Just have an objective competence exam. Final exam questions from 101 courses dealing with geography, physics, calculus, world and US history, micro and macro economics should suffice. Have the tests written, proctored and graded by a panel of judges appointed by larger public colleges in the country. That should do it. If a 90 year old is still with it enough to get a passing score of say 80% and continue to do so for the next decade, then mazel tov, let them serve.
That is too complex to be realistic.
I know what your goal is an applaud it, but have you taken any time to consider what unintended consequences this might have? Like, lots of people say stuff like "people who work in Congress should get minimum wage" and that sounds great, until you realize that the stance plays out to only allowing financially independent people to hold office. Is there any concern with, in your mind, with linking an intelligence test with being a representative, in a country that has routinely deprioritized the education of minorities?
Not the OP. I can easily imagine a test that, if someone cannot pass it, I can clearly say they shouldn't be representatives. While still weeding out cases like Feinstein.
Might there be problems with people who have the knowledge but have problems with the process of being tested? Maybe. But maybe those people also shouldn't be representatives. I don't know enough about the causes of test fright to be confident on that.
>I can easily imagine a test that, if someone cannot pass it, I can clearly say they shouldn’t be representatives. While still weeding out cases like Feinstein.
Why are you sure about this? Do you think her issue is a lack of education/knowledge?
>But maybe those people also shouldn’t be representatives.
I'm sure you mean well, but this is a very dangerous sentence. What if the body or person that ends up with final say on the test has some thoughts on what a representative should or should not know, and those thoughts don't match yours? Like, in an extreme hypothetical, imagine if someone like Tucker Carlson had some input on what questions to ask and what answers to accept. What kind of person would that test filter out?
In a perfect world, a knowledge test requirement to be a representative isn't a terrible idea, but in a perfect world, it also wouldn't be needed, and most importantly, we are definitely not in a perfect world.
> > > Why are you sure about this? Do you think her issue is a lack of education/knowledge? > >
Exactly. From what the article says, the remarks she was attempting to deliver were accurate and on point. She was momentarily disoriented as to what particular action the Senate was engaged in at that time.
She may be too far gone to recognize how far gone she is.
No one wants this more than the GOP, unfortunately, because the moment she's out a number of bipartisan commissions will now have 1 more R than D and all the people the Dems nominate to fill the empty slots will get rejected by the Freedom Caucus members pulling McCarthy's strings.
Why was someone over 85 put on multiple committees? It’s not like she’s just now slowing down, she’s lost it completely already, this can’t be a surprise to anyone. The system is so fucked.
The senate ranks based off seniority. The longer you've been a senator, the more power you yield. Senior senators get first choice of committee assignment. The longer you're on a committee, the more senior you are on that committee. So, very old person has been a powerhouse for a long time and gets to choose their committees. The more senior, the more powerful committee you can join; the longer on the power committees, the more power you yield on that committee. THE SENATE IS SET UP TO GIVE MORE POWER TO OLD PEOPLE.
She wasn't put anywhere, she chose those spots; and there isn't a damn person who can do anything about it as long as she is re-elected. Retire or death is the only way she leaves those committees. I know how this will end. As long as she gets re-elected. It's that simple.
Oh wow, thanks for the explanation. It’s worse than I thought.
I suppose I thought there might have been some checks and balances to prevent someone with dementia from continuing to clutch onto power, guess not.
The checks and balances for that are the voters, supposedly.
The people close to Feinstein are 100% enjoying the power she gives them.
The Democratic Party is trying to keep the popular CA governor from appointing a senator so that they can put their own centrist on the ticket.
Her constituents keep voting for her, so they deserve what they are getting.
So long as Feinstein continues to choose to run, there is little that anyone can do. At least those constituents can see that the republican party is a non-starter as they actively make everything worse for everyone.
Afaik, there is not a single R that would pull a Manchin or Simena and vote against party lines (for more progress at least, many of them will vote against out of spite or to push to make things even worse).