I suppose there will be backlash, since she has said that she thought the vote should wait until after the election. But I agree with her reasoning. Barrett is qualified, even if I don’t agree with her positions, or at least the predictions made about how she will vote on things such as the ACA and Roe v Wade. And the senator cannot control the process by which Barrett got the nomination and hearing. I don’t see how she could or would justify voting against her if she is satisfied with Barrett’s qualifications.
Murkowski was my Senator in Alaska. She’s about as transparent an “independent” as there can be. She does this token thing where she pretends that she “has doubts” about something and then votes party line after they throw her a bone. I have to wonder what they offered her this time. She’s as phony as the rest of them. Her father was the worst senator and worst governor in the state’s history. At one point he had the lowest support ratings in all 50 states. The only person worse than her is Representative Don Young.
I never had any doubts that she would toe the party line.
She makes noises like she cares about the wishes of her constituency and the good of the country, but she never actually follows through, and follows orders like a good little puppet.
I have no problem with the idea of general phoniness of quite a few politicians. But I for one don’t know that she is pretending.
I am as pissed off, still, about Garland as it seems you are. But that was Mitch’s doing, not Murkowski’s.
I don’t buy it. Trump gets to be president for four complete years. Maybe the argument about this being close to an election has some merit (not to me), but that doesn’t change the rules. Imagine you own a company, and have interviewed the perfect candidate. Wouldn’t you hire her immediately? That to my mind is what Murkowski is doing.
And just a general comment on the “TEN DAYS before an election” argument: Mitch obviously made up this bullshit argument about nominations of SCOTUS justices in an election year, and the left rightly excoriated him for it. How is this any different? It’s just a made up “rule”.
I certainly understand that POV, just as I understand that politicians are virtually all liars and rank hypocrites.
But is there any point past which people won’t go, when there truly is no valid argument about why it was “different last time” (ref: Mitch’s inane blather on the subject) ?
If they’re looting in your neighborhood, and one person breaks through the glass at Best Buy, do you really have to go in and grab some electronics ?
The moderate Republicans … in the case of Trump … simply haven’t been.
There’s no Joseph Welch anywhere to bellow, “Have you no sense of decency ?”
With the notable exception of Romney’s finding (flawed half-measure though it may have been) in impeachment.
Most here understand the impact of the SCOTUS nominations. This one … leaves a mark.
If you’re pissed that Mitch McConnell can essentially get away with rigging the Court just because he has the power to do so, then you also would logically agree that Democrats would be well within their right to rig the Court if they end up having the power to do so. Court packing, here we come, baby.
Except Murkowski doesn’t agree with Mitch and thinks that going ahead with the nomination will be harmful to the country. But oh well, might as well go along with something she thinks is wrong and harmful.
This is the reasoning I agree with, not your quotes. Where are they from? But trusting their accuracy, the first one doesn’t change anything for me. She was against having the vote, but since it happened, she is within her rights to, and should, vote for someone she believes is qualified. As for the second quote, that’s a bit different, so thanks for posting, as I hadn’t seen this. Perhaps she thinks the country will be better off with Barrett as a justice, if she is truly impressed with her qualifications, in spite of what she said there. If that is not the case, then her position as stated is questionable, to say the least.
Leaving the timing out of it, I object to the statement that she is qualified. She is, by her own admission, a religious bigot who believes that her role is to bring about the kingdom of god onto earth and has made it as clear as possible that that will color all her decisions. Not just Roe, but also ACA and possibly medicare since neither was explicitly authorized in the constitution. Neither were private unregulated militias, but she won’t see it that way.
It’s different because the Republicans are the ones who claimed said rule existed in order to stop Garland. They claimed a principle that didn’t allow them to bring him in, and now are abandoning that principle.
Then there’s Murkowski herself, who says that going ahead with the nomination would harm the country. That means her vote to confirm is her doing what she believes will harm the country.
People are generally held to what they say. If you say that something is wrong on principle, then you’re expected to uphold that principle, even when it would be disadvantageous to do so. And if you say something would be harmful, you are expected to not help that thing happen.
Personal responsibility. The way you are framing things allows people to not have it. To just say whatever they want to get whatever they want.
Except that neither the job or candidate is going anywhere in this case. It’s not like she’s going to take a job with the Canadian Supreme Court if they wait too long.
The overwhelming force that stands against 99% of Congressional Republicans acting according to the principles that they themselves have publicly espoused is not merely that they lack a moral compass…
…it’s that if they acted according to their own stated principles–at the cost of bucking a GOP project such as confirmation of a Justice–they would be shut out of the Right-Wing Alternative Economy.
The Right-Wing Alternative Economy ensures obedient Republicans both wealth and power, extending long after their terms in Congress. It includes speaking fees, seats on corporate boards of directors, appointments to think tanks, and book sales. It gives every obedient Republican the prospect of a glittering social life with deferential young right-wingers on hand to flatter and serve them.
Lisa Murkowski never had, and never will have, the moral fiber it would take to turn her back on the RWAE. She will be an obedient Republican every time, no matter what “principles” she has ever pretended to care about.
