Love her or hate her, Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, has been a prominent figure in the Senate for over three decades, making significant contributions to American politics. However, her recent absence due to a shingles diagnosis has sparked a debate among her colleagues and the public alike. Feinstein, who has served on the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced her decision to step down from her position on the committee but expressed her intent to remain in the Senate.
Feinstein’s role on the Judiciary Committee has been pivotal, particularly given the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the Senate. Progressives in California and the entire nation may not recognize how important her presence still is for President Biden’s agenda. The committee is responsible for vetting and advancing judicial candidates, a task that has taken on heightened importance for the Democratic plan. The absence of Feinstein from these proceedings has been felt acutely, as noted by Senator Amy Klobuchar, who stated that the committee could not advance judges or legislation without her due to the close vote.
The need for Feinstein’s vote extends beyond the Judiciary Committee. As the Democrats prepare for a debt-ceiling standoff, her vote could be instrumental in determining the outcome. Her vote is crucial not just for her state, but for the entire nation, given the one-vote margin that often decides the fate of key legislative matters.
Feinstein’s health status and her ability to fulfill her duties have been a subject of concern. Critics, like Rep. Ro Khanna, argue that her absence from Senate votes—75% this year according to Khanna—impedes the ability of the Senate to function effectively and advocate for pressing issues.
Despite the controversy, Feinstein’s supporters praise her past contributions and defend her right to decide when to step down. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, for instance, has highlighted Feinstein’s extraordinary membership in the Senate and her right, as elected by her state, to determine her future in the Senate.
Feinstein’s decision to step down from the Judiciary Committee is seen by some of her colleagues as a responsible move, considering her health condition and the critical role the committee plays in advancing the Democrats’ agenda. However, her vote in the Senate remains vital, and her return to full participation is eagerly awaited by many in her party.
It is important to note that Senator Feinstein, who was first elected in 1992, has already announced that she will not seek another term in 2024, and several figures in the Democratic party are already positioning themselves to succeed her.
The saga of Senator Feinstein’s health and its impact on the Senate underscores the delicate balance of power in the Senate and the outsized role individual senators can play in shaping the national agenda (Yes, we are looking about you, Senator Manchin). As the oldest senator in the chamber, Feinstein’s experience and influence have made her an important figure in the Democratic party, and her presence or absence from the Senate can have significant consequences for the party’s priorities and the broader political landscape.