As you well know, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to confirm or deny the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court Thursday morning. The vote was a unanimous 12-0 in favor of Barrett, sending the decision to the full Senate on the following Monday.

Now, I know. If you haven’t heard much about the vote, you are wondering how it was unanimously in favor of Barrett as Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement when there was such a heated battle about it throughout the last few weeks. Well, that is because Democrats, in an attempt to prolong the vote and Barrett’s confirmation indefinitely, decided to boycott the judiciary vote altogether. They simply didn’t show up for the vote.

But the attempt was rather ignorant on their part, not to mention futile.

You see, Senate Judiciary Committee votes and processes are slightly different from that of the full Senate. In the former, when members of one party show refuse to show, there is a problem, forcing the vote to be delayed.  But as leader of the committee, Senator Lindsay Graham decided to change things, following Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid’s example in 2013.

Graham simply proposed changing the rules to follow that of a usual full senate, in which a simple majority is needed to vote. And with no Democrats present, per Schumer’s insistence, there was no one to object to such a change.

Double failure.

No matter how symbolic it might have been, their boycott was essentially just thrown out in the trash and made utterly moot.

It is also noted that, since the Senate has a Republican majority, Barrett is likely to be confirmed on Monday when the full Senate votes no matter how many Democrats show up to work or not.

Now, it would seem to me that these failures would lie directly at the feet of Chuck Schumer as he is the one seemingly calling the shots for the left at the moment. However, that’s not exactly how he sees it.

According to him, if anyone is to blame, it is longtime Democratic Senator and Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein.

As the Democratic front leader against Barrett, it would have been her responsibility to make Dems and Republicans both see any problems in confirming ACB to the Supreme Court. And obviously, that didn’t happen. Instead, it seemed the more the left attacked the Catholic judge, the more the nation seemed to fall in love with her, making her confirmation even harder to resist.

And now that the leftward leaning party has failed, they or at least Schumer wants someone to pay.

Of course, he’s not saying that in so many words, but it certainly seems to be implied.

When asked about Feinstein’s handling of the situation and if it would cost her the leading position on the Judiciary Committee, Schumer said, “I had a long and serious talk with Sen. Feinstein. That’s all I’m going to say.”

His lack of words on the matter speaks volumes.

Democrats had already been having doubts about Feinstein’s position as Judiciary Ranking Member on the committee. She is known to be rather soft-spoken and far more gentile in conversation than most of her party members. Of course, there is also the fact that she is 87 and relies heavily on her staff to do just about anything.

But with so little time between Ginsburg’s death and Barrett’s nomination, Dems just didn’t have adequate time to make any changes, especially with someone that would sit well with the Senate at this point. I mean, here you have a vote to confirm or deny a female nominee to replace one of the first female and Jewish justices ever appointed to the Supreme Court. And the only suitable senators were white and male? I don’t think so.

Talk about not being woke.

But now that the Judiciary Committee is not needed for such a heady vote, Senate Dems just might make the time to find a replacement for Feinstein.

Maybe they should think about replacing Schumer while they’re at it, as he’s the real reason the Dems lost this battle.