Lisa Murkowski Reverses Herself And Will Now Vote To Confirm Amy Coney Barrett

Back in September, Murkowski said she would not vote to confirm any nominee before the election.
By Ed Scarce — October 25, 2020

And this week's Susan Collins Award goes to her fellow faux moderate in the U.S. Senate, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski.

Source: The Hill

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said on Saturday that she will vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday, despite objections to taking up the nomination before the Nov. 3 election.

"I have no doubt about her intellect. I have no doubt about Judge Barrett's judicial temperament. I have no doubt about her capability to do the job. ... I have concluded that she is the sort of person we want on the Supreme Court," Murkowski said from the Senate floor.

Murkowski, during her floor speech, reiterated that she does not believe Republicans should be holding a vote on Barrett before the Nov. 3 election. Murkowski voted against proceeding to the nomination on Friday and said she will oppose ending debate on Barrett's nomination on Sunday.

Here are some of Murkowski's tortured contortions.

"I do not believe that moving forward on a nominee just over a week removed from a pitched presidential election when partisan tensions are running about as high as they could ... will help our country become a better version of itself."

"Frankly, I've lost that procedural fight."

"I believe that the only way to put us back on the path of appropriate consideration of judicial nominees is to evaluate Judge Barrett as we would want to be judged, on the merits of her qualifications. And so when we do that, when that final question comes before us ... I will be a yes."

"While I oppose the process that has led us to this point, I do not hold it against her as an individual who has navigated the gauntlet with grace, skill and humility. I will vote no on the procedural votes ahead of us but yes to confirm Judge Barrett when the question before us is her qualification to be an associate justice."

And here is what she said about the time Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed, as one of those "principled" Republicans who wouldn't even give Merrick Garland a hearing.

“I would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. We are 50 some days away from an election,” she said.

Murkowski said her reasoning is based on the same reasoning that held up the confirmation of former President Barack Obama’s final nominee to the Supreme Court.

She also noted that months prior to the 2016 presidential election, while Obama was still president, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Americans needed to pick the next president before the Senate confirmed a new justice to the Supreme Court.

“That was too close to an election, and that the people needed to decide,” Murkowski said, recalling McConnell’s argument at the time. “That the closer you get to an election, that argument becomes even more important.”

As usual, a Republican's word ain't worth spit.

And, this is evergreen.

Become a subscriber:
 
Make a donation:

If you don't mind the ads and would rather donate, please select one of the options below:

Kindest
Donate via PayPal
Via Snail Mail
payable to: Crooksandliars
528 Palisades Drive
Ste 548
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272

Explore more

Discussion

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.
Mastodon