Press: Decoding and resolving the Feinstein dilemma 

Readers, beware: Things are not always as bleak as they appear in the media. Such is the case with the current gloom and doom surrounding Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D).  

The senior senator from California has been sidelined since mid-February with a bad case of shingles — and, because of “continued complications,” her medical team still can’t provide a definite date of when, if ever, she’ll be able to resume her senatorial duties.  

Feinstein’s situation has prompted many Democrats, led by California Rep. Ro Khanna, to accuse the senator of single-handedly blocking confirmation of any Biden-appointed judges and passage of any major legislation — and to demand that she immediately resign.  

The truth is more complicated.  

True, last week, without her vote (and because Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia changed his vote) the Senate voted 50-49 to overrule a tough new EPA measure on truck emissions. Had Feinstein been present, the vote would have been 50-50, enabling Vice President Harris to break the tie.  

But that bill will be vetoed by the president. So, in effect, nothing has changed.  

It’s also true that, without Feinstein’s presence and with the Judiciary Committee split between 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans, it’s more difficult to get judges confirmed. But not impossible. In fact, during her absence, 15 new judges have been confirmed on the Senate floor, and eight in committee. As of today, there are 26 judicial nominations with enough bipartisan support merely waiting for a vote on the floor, where Feinstein’s absence will make no difference.  

The story’s darker in the Judiciary Committee, where four Biden nominees sit in limbo. So far, one of them, New Hampshire’s Michael Delaney, doesn’t have enough  Democratic votes to get confirmed. But three of them can’t get confirmed only because Feinstein’s not there to vote for them.  

In other words, out of 30 pending judicial nominations in committee and on the floor, Feinstein’s absence is clearly holding up three of them.  

While not as dire as some insist, the Feinstein problem is still serious. Any other time, this wouldn’t be so difficult. Common decency and senatorial courtesy would inspire senators to find a way for their oldest-sitting member to continue to serve. But not in today’s divisive political climate, as proven when Senate Republicans promptly rejected Feinstein’s offer to step aside and allow another Democrat to sit on the Judiciary Committee until she can return to Washington.   

At this point, there are only two options.  

First, as soon as her doctors give the green light, Feinstein returns to Washington and gets back to work. Despite slowing down and showing signs of her 89 years, Feinstein will be remembered as one of California’s greatest public servants and among the most dynamic and effective of all U.S. senators. She’s had a remarkable career as chair of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, mayor of San Francisco, and U.S. senator since 1992. If at all possible, she deserves to serve out the rest of her term.  

But if she can’t do her job, then Feinstein should resign her post and let Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) name her successor. In this case, Newsom should let California voters choose which of three already announced Senate candidates — Reps. Adam Schiff, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee — they prefer to take her place and, instead, appoint a caretaker to sit in for the remainder of Feinstein’s term.   

That should be an easy decision for Newsom. There’s only one Californian who would be an instant power in the Senate and worthy successor to Sen. Feinstein: former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  

Think about it: Sen. Nancy Pelosi. Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?   

Press is host of “The Bill Press Pod.” He is the author of “From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.”