Feinstein, who was hospitalized in early March for shingles and has remained in her San Francisco home since March 7, has missed 60 votes of the 82 taken in the Senate in 2023, per the San Francisco Chronicle. And as the Senate, which has been on recess since March 31, prepares to return on April 17, Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Monday that Feinstein’s absence from the Senate—and the Judiciary Committee specifically—will impede Democrats’ ability to confirm judicial nominees. …

Feinstein’s team has been tight-lipped about when, if at all, she’ll return to D.C. Her spokesperson told the Chronicle this week that the 89-year-old “continues to work from home in San Francisco as she recuperates.” Earlier this year, Feinstein announced she won’t seek reelection in 2024 as a handful of Democratic House members vie for her seat. But she intends to serve out the rest of her term, which is set to end in January 2025. That’s close to two years from now, and it’s troubling to consider all the key votes and confirmation processes that could be stalled by Feinstein’s absence—either now or in the future, if she becomes ill again—given Democrats’ razor-thin 51-49 majority.

[Democrats would have more room to complain if they hadn’t spent the last half of 2022 insisting that competency didn’t matter in Pennsylvania. However, in fairness, Jezebel’s correct that Feinstein should resign *if* she can’t return. That may be hard cheese for her, so to speak, and no one can force her to do it, but she has an ethical obligation to allow her state to have two effective senators in the upper chamber. That’s *if* she can’t return. — Ed]