If there’s one Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat besides Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) who most gives the liberal wing of their party fits, it might be Feinstein’s successor as the panel’s top Democrat, Chair Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). And Durbin’s gentle handling of calls from the left for Feinstein to resign has only exacerbated the situation.
But if you look closely at Durbin’s comments this weekend, you begin to see him applying some pressure.
The big headlines from Durbin’s CNN interview tended to focus on host Jake Tapper’s line of questioning. “I mean, all due respect, sir, you and your fellow Democrats were very ginger and very polite when it came to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in not pushing her to retire when you had a Democratic majority in the Senate,” Tapper said. “How did that work out for you? How did that work out for Roe v. Wade?”
That’s an eminently fair point, which we dissected here. Feinstein’s defenders can note that it’s rare to apply pressure on an ailing senator to resign, but the stakes here are also rare. Democrats’ majority and time to confirm judges could be running short, and Feinstein’s absence — she was hospitalized in March for shingles — means Republicans can block them.
But while Durbin offered general and sympathetic comments about how this is up to Feinstein, 89, he also undercut her defense for holding out. And he even seemed to question her pledge that she would be back.
In a statement last week, Feinstein maintained that despite her absence on the Judiciary Committee, “There has been no slowdown.”
Durbin seemed to take issue with this, albeit without directly addressing it. He pointed to Democrats’ inability to subpoena people to probe reports on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, such as Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow, if they decided they wanted to.
“We need her,” he said. “It is a challenge in the Senate Judiciary Committee to do our business.”
Durbin later repeated this, while alluding to the fact that this situation is different than other senators who have been absent for long stretches because of illness.
“I don’t want to say that she’s going to be put under more pressure than others have been in the past,” he said. “But the bottom line is: The business of the committee and of the Senate is affected by her absence.”
In addition, Feinstein’s statement last week treated her return as inevitable — i.e., she said “when I return to the Senate” — but Durbin notably intimated it was possible that she wouldn’t.
“I hope she does what’s best for her and her family and the state of California and makes a decision soon as to whether she’s coming back,” he said.
Durbin’s commentary is clearly less favorable to Feinstein than some of her most ardent defenders.
Some like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) have suggested the calls for her to resign are sexist. Others like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), who is running to replace Feinstein, have suggested it might be pointless — because Republicans might not seat a replacement on the committee.
(The GOP has blocked a temporary replacement for Feinstein, but not replacing a resigned senator and depriving the majority party of a majority on the committee would set a remarkable new precedent. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), the committee’s senior Republican, has assured he would support replacing Feinstein in that situation.)
Durbin’s comments, importantly, indicate even top Democrats don’t appear to have clarity on when Feinstein might be able to return. The photographed notes of Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) last week indicated he was “hopeful” she would come back this week, but Feinstein’s office said there was no timeline for her return.
Questions about Feinstein’s ability to serve have lingered for years, which also colors the situation. The New York Times editorial board on Friday argued that it was just about decision time.
“If she cannot fulfill her obligations to the Senate and to her constituents, she should resign and turn over her responsibilities to an appointed successor,” it said. “If she is unable to reach that decision on her own, Mr. Schumer, the majority leader, and other Democratic senators should make it clear to her and the public how important it is that she do so.”
Durbin’s comments move the ball forward on that — subtly, of course.
