Lisa Murkowski becomes the second Republican Senator to oppose taking up the nomination before the election.

  
Via:  Bob Nelson  •  one month ago  •  14 comments

By:   New York Times

Lisa Murkowski becomes the second Republican Senator to oppose taking up the nomination before the election.



"For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election""For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election"

To comment, please join group Be Reasonable!

Be Reasonable!

The only Republicans with balls are the women.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



A second Republican senator came out against taking up a Supreme Court nomination before the election, potentially complicating Republican efforts to let President Trump swiftly fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, 512 Republican from Alaska,
speaks to reporters before going a luncheon
with other Senate Republicans in Washington
on July 23rd.
Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said in a statement on Sunday that she would not support confirming a Supreme Court nominee before Election Day. Having objected to filling the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, she said she believed "the same standard must apply" less than two months before the presidential election.

"For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election," Ms. Murkowski said in a statement. "Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed."

"I did not support taking up a nomination eight months before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia," she said in the statement. "We are now even closer to the 2020 election — less than two months out — and I believe the same standard must apply."

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, on Saturday said not only that the Senate should not vote on a nominee before the election, but that the victor in the presidential election on Nov. 3 should fill the vacancy.

But another moderate senator, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a retiring Republican considered by many to be a strong defender of Senate traditions, on Sunday joined the growing ranks of Republicans in support of confirming Mr. Trump's pick.

"No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican president's Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year," Mr. Alexander said in a statement. "The Constitution gives senators the power to do it. The voters who elected them expect it."

Ms. Murkowski's stance against a vote ahead of the November election was striking, particularly given signals from the White House that the administration hopes to nominate someone for the position in the coming days.

It remains unclear, however, whether Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, will hold a vote on a Supreme Court nominee before November, though on Friday he vowed that the Senate would vote on Mr. Trump's nominee.

With Ms. Murkowski and Ms. Collins both publicly voicing their objections to such a timeline, Mr. McConnell can only afford to lose the support of two more Republican senators.



Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Bob Nelson
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    one month ago

Then again... we've seen this film before...

 
 
 
Tacos!
2  Tacos!    one month ago

I suppose they are being consistent, but I think they are wrong. The president should do what he would normally do and the Senate should do what they normally do - regardless of the state of election politics.

The fact that they didn't proceed normally in 2016 doesn't make any difference. I didn't buy McConnell's rationale at the time, but that's his problem.* It was wrong to wait for the election then and it would be wrong now. The process of government should not come to a crippling stop just because an election is looming.

What will be the appropriate cutoff date for such a policy? There is no way to determine it. Would it be just SCOTUS justices or all judges? What about other business? This silliness has no connection to the Constitution.

*If he had just said in 2016, "I already know we don't have the votes, so there is no point in proceeding," that would have been an honest answer that at least leaned somewhat on precedent, and it would have no bearing on 2020. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @2    one month ago

I hope that, if the Republicans ram through a new Justice, the Democrats will pack the Court. The Republicans set the precedent of fucking with the system, so there's no reason for the Democrats to not follow up. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1    one month ago
The Republicans set the precedent of fucking with the system....
No, Hairy Reed started that ball rolling, and it hasn't stopped....

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1    one month ago
The Republicans set the precedent of fucking with the system

What are you referring to?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.2    one month ago

The Garland blocus. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.3    one month ago

While I think that was handled poorly, the Senate was within its authority to refuse consent to a nominee.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.5  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.4    one month ago

They never voted. They left the nomination in limbo for most of a year. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.5    one month ago

They do that with bills all the time. If they don’t have the votes, they shelve it. It’s obviously not common with Supreme Court justices, but it actually happens quite a bit with lower courts.

Several of Bush’s judicial appointments were filibustered by the minority Democrats . That doesn’t seem any less “fucking with the system” than what McConnell did with Garland.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.7  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.6    one month ago

McConnell's refusal to bring Garland's nomination to a vote was unique in the history of Supreme Court nominations. 

Period. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.7    one month ago

That doesn't make it wrong.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.7    one month ago

McConnell's refusal to bring Garland's nomination to a vote was unique in the history of Supreme Court nominatio
 
that’s completely false.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.1    one month ago

The ball started rolling with Robert Bork. The Democrats have been escalating ever since..

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.11  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.10    one month ago

Bork's nomination followed standard procedure. It was defeated. 

Reagan chose to offer a highly political nominee. The Senate decided that the man who carried out Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre should not sit on the Supreme Court.

Imagine Trump nominates Bill Barr. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




GaJenn78
Ed-NavDoc
Kavika
Ender
devangelical


45 visitors