Dianne Feinstein has died

A long and distinguished career of public service but perhaps she should have retired rather than run in 2018. May she rest in peace.

 

Democrats will perhaps breathe a bit easier now. Gavin Newsom will appoint a Democrat to the seat.

 

He must do it in a hurry for obvious reasons.

 

She definitely should have retired in 2018. But, that's why it's called 20/20 hindsight not 20/20 foresight.

 

"Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed their condolences following the death of California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein Thursday night at 90, remembering her as a trailblazing senator who dedicated decades of her life to public service.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also spoke on the floor Friday morning to honor Feinstein.
“Her beloved home state of California and our entire nation are better for her dogged advocacy and diligent service,” McConnell said.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said in a Friday press conference that Feinstein had “inspired women from both sides of the aisle to seek elected office.”

While Feinstein routinely butted heads with conservatives on issues like gun control and abortion access, an outpouring from her Republican colleagues remembered her fondly and highlighted her bipartisanship."

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/dianne-feinstein-lawmakers-reaction-00119048

 

I think that is fair about Feinstein, but perhaps not with McConnell. Sure, he's had a couple of events there, but I don't think there is any reason to believe he's operating at a significantly diminished capacity overall. I believe Feinstein was and I don't believe Biden is.

Don't get me wrong; I loathe Mitch McConnell. But no, I don't believe he is unable to carry out his duties.

 

Even the somnolent Canadian Senate has a mandatory retirement age -- I think it's 75. McConnell is 81 and his advanced age has become quite obvious, as Steve pointed out. This 80-year-old (me) says - send him home. He can enjoy whatever time he has left. Whether you like him or not, or whether he's "losing it" or not - workdays are over, or should be.

My take: The last thing an old person needs, in so many cases, is a highly responsible job. And the last thing the rest of us need is for them to carry it out irresponsibly at some unpredictable point. I retired at 50. I'd have been OK with it at 25-30, but there wasn't any money on the table yet. As soon as there was, I took it and ran.

 

And I'd do it again ... but next time, I'd take much more, before I started running.

 

While I agree with you that Feinstein should have retired long ago, the reality is that once a person starts losing their marbles, by definition they won't think anything is wrong and hence see no need to leave. That's why we need term limits or mandatory retirement age, or both, for all three branches of government.

 

We have them. They're called "elections."

 

Elections are not term limits, and besides, not all of them are elected. Example: Supreme Court justices.

 

Granted on the Supreme Court. But oh, yes, elections are term limiters. Every time one occurs the people are given an opportunity to limit the term of the incumbent.

Term limits are: "Please stop me from doing what I want."

 

Term limits would stop those who've served enough terms (as defined by that political jurisdiction) to not be listed on the ballot; voters would have to exercise some judgement in their next choice instead of taking the easy way out by selecting an incumbent who may be familiar, but is hogging the elected office for themselves.

That's one reason there's a political crisis whenever a Supreme Court justice sneezes or coughs. Back when the Constitution was first written, the relatively low life expectancies of the era served as a natural term limit. Today, without a time or competency limit on service, a person can hold a high office well beyond when their marbles run out. A competency evaluation is a lot more problematic to add to the Constitution than a term limit

 

Term limits universally make the problems they are trying to solve worse. They make less experienced legislators who can pass fewer bills, know less about the law, who must rely on lobbyists.

As Wikipedia puts it:

 

One feature of the Confederate Constitution that I think might have been an improvement is that the President served a single six year term and was ineligible for reelection.

 

I also assumed they were using legislative output as the sole criterion. Looking at the original source, it's defined somewhat more widely: "Loosely speaking, we consider a legislator to be more “productive” when she sponsors more bills, shows up to cast roll-call votes more often, and performs more committee service in the legislature"

Term-limited politicians show up for fewer votes, sponsor fewer bills, and spend less time in committee. Interestingly, that original source is saying something somewhat different than the original. The original implies that the existence of term limits reduces legislator productivity because of the knowledge that one will one day be limited, but that effect only occurs in the final term when they are not facing the prospect of reelection.

Edit: Whoops, forgot to link the source, https://www.legbranch.org/2018-6-19-how-do-electoral-incentives-affect-legislator-behavior/

 

A common street name in Northern Mexico is "Calle de No Reelección".