« Jeb Bush Not Running For Senate In Florida | Home | Franken's Lawyer Ridicules "Former Senator Coleman" »

On Swearing-in Day, a Lesson in Comity

The word "comity" often comes up in conversation with creatures of the Senate. It's defined by Merriam-Webster as "the informal and voluntary recognition by courts of one jurisdiction of the laws and judicial decisions of another" -- substitute "lawmakers" for "courts", and you get an idea of how serious members of Congress take their jurisdictions.

On this swearing-in day, when the oath-taking line brought new senators' families shoulder to shoulder with Vice President-elect Joe Biden, the incoming administration appears to have been taught a lesson in comity. Dianne Feinstein, the freshly minted chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, was not informed in advance of Leon Panetta's nomination to head the CIA, and she came out with surprising fervor to criticize the pick.

Was this merely a question of a powerful senator objecting to the lack of comity afforded her? Apparently not, as Feinstein and her intel panel predecessor Jay Rockefeller have questioned Panetta's qualifications and voiced support for the current CIA No 2, Steven Kappes. Whether or not Kappes stays on as a way to sooth skeptical senators, Panetta's confirmation hearing is bound to shed a stark light on the CIA's involvement in Bush-era interrogation tactics.

As for Panetta himself, one wonders if he'll take the advice of former GOP colleague Pat Roberts and pay an in-person call to the intelligence agencies to introduce himself. Might be good practice for the hearing room.


16 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Was this merely a question of a powerful senator objecting to the lack of comity afforded her?

One way of looking at it. A second is what you go on to point out: Feinstein and Rockefeller has concerns over Panetta's qualifications.

I think both are simply smokescreens to hide the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller may be threatened by an outsider moving in to their "jurisdiction" and inadvertently exposing both as moral and legal frauds who have supported tort--er, "enhanced interrogation techniques".

user-pic

Maybe, but I think this is more about power. With Panetta as head of CIA, Obama has more and Feinstein less. Obama wanted his man there to carry out his agenda, not Feinstein's. Obama has nothing to gain by exposing her and Rocky's enabling of Bush. He doesn't need her to be weak - he's just making sure she knows who's stronger.

user-pic

DiFi on a roll today:


WASHINGTON – The chairman of the Senate Rules Committee has parted with many of her Democratic colleagues and says that the Senate should seat former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said Tuesday that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, however tainted by corruption charges, has the right to appoint someone to President-elect Barack Obama's former seat. The Rules Committee decides whether Burris is qualified to serve.

Feinstein said that blocking Burris would have ramifications for other governors' appointments.

user-pic

This is starting to look like a fairly serious Obama/Feinstein split.

To me, this looks like a move aimed at picking up support withing the CBC. For what, I'm not sure, but there's no way she just randomly weighed in on this one.

user-pic

Obama/Feinstein split? That's the best thing I've heard about Obama since the election!

user-pic

Seconded. Very heartily.

user-pic

Whoa! At least you and I agree on that one. My senator DiFI stinks. Boxer is cool though.

user-pic

I understand she's the chair of the Senate Rules Committee. So it's just not a random comment - her committee is the one that will analyze whether the appointment was valid.

user-pic

The more I look at this, the more it seems like the transition team did this on purpose. They are the "kings of comity," when they want to be, and they certainly have heard of a Senator named Feinstein, etc. To not tell Feinstein is to put her on notice that change is coming, and the Obama Administration doesn't suffer from the kind of critique she gives, because it's easily refutable (there have been an number of strong CIA Directors without agency experience, etc.), and in the end it just ends up highlighting how she supported torture and Obama doesn't. Feinstein will get nothing for her whining.

(Hmm. Can you tell I'm psyched?)

user-pic

Does anyone REALLY think Feinstein is going to try and muscle Obama on this one?

user-pic

Nah. As I said above, this is about power and influence. Obama wanted his man at CIA and that lessens Feinstein's influence there. She's just letting him know she still has some fangs left. But they need each other too much to get into a real fight. This one's over. Nothing left to see here.

user-pic

Ahh a real story, with meat on the bone!

Why should Obama curtesy to ineffectual Chairwoman of the Intel. Cmte., the same committee that has done nothing in the last 2 years but enable Bush and the abominable War on Terror?


user-pic

I think Rockefeller and DiFi (those avbreves, ugh!) are pooping rocks over the FISA report due in June. Are they worried about something they've done- something that might come up in that report? Something involving the CIA? Hmmmmmmmm.

user-pic

Inpector General's FISA report due in July, that is.

user-pic

Very nice reporting on the Panetta matter Ms. Schor.
Thanks

user-pic

Yeah, Obama's really handing Feinstein her ass on this one. There's nothing she can really do except a) accept her (deservedly) diminished role, or b) keep whining and fade quickly. Please notice that Senator Feingold approves of Panetta. Who might be slightly more authoritative and, well, right on the subject, and likely in the long run to gain real (read: functional/instrumental) stature and influence as a result of this kerfluffle? Everything counts, folks, everything counts.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address