She did attend Notre Dame… 
Don’t they speak Gaelic?
Daddy’s little girl.
Also see ‘distances apples are likely to fall from trees.’
It’s also interesting because Murkowski and Collins have said in the past that they don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned and I believe they said they wouldn’t approve someone they know is going to vote to overturn it, so I guess that fig leaf is gone too.
It is legitimately strange to me that she’s taking this position when it’s a free vote. This isn’t even an integrity vs. pragmatism issue, it’s just integrity vs. loyalty.
Going by the definition of “bigot”, you are saying that she has admitted to being “obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief” of some sort? Or are you making this claim about her?
This is pure electoral politics for Murkoswki. She’s up in two years, and she has never won more than a plurality of votes in any of her previous three Senate races. She’s already on thin ice with the Alaskan Republican Party and will likely face a strong primary challenger. Sure she won her 2010 race as a write-in candidate after loosing the Republican primary, but that was a unique alignment of stars and one I’m sure she doesn’t want to have to bank on happening again.
I meant different in the context of the left making up a bullshit rule, the same way the right did.
Worse than Palin?!! 
I simply mean that if the job candidate is qualified, why not hire her?
If I understand you, you are saying that Murkowski’s sole purpose vis a vis the Barrett vote is to act in a way that will most help her in getting re-elected in two years. Is this an accurate representation of your opinion? I’ve seen similar general statements about Reps and Dems alike over the years, suggesting that the only reason they runs for office, is just so they can get elected, and then do anything and everything, just to make sure the get elected down the road, and principles be damned. Is it not possible that this concept is wrong, and such people run because they believe they can make a difference, and are making an honest attempt to do so?
There is no consequence to her hypocrisy here. If ever she has a friend or relative who is in need of an abortion, that person will have access to a safe abortion via a discreet doctor no matter how illegal it is in any part of the US. And if ever they are found out they certainly won’t face murder charges or any of the other draconian penalties that Republicans come up with. Nope, their situation is always a special one that deserves an exception.
Oh, you betcha. She was elected because of Murkowski’s incompetence. Now, Palin was no great shakes as the goober, either, and if she had stuck around for a full term, may have been impeached. But we’ll never know.
Merrick Garland was qualified for an open position. The big boss offered him the job, but the hiring committee wouldn’t even hold the interview because “it is inappropriate in an election year”. I hate hypocrisy.
I have no doubt that the majority of politicians initially seek to obtain and retain office because, in their minds, they are standing on important principles and making a positive contribution to their country. But all politicians also face the reality that the only way they can continue to make this great positive contribution is by winning their next election. And sometimes they estimate that winning requires adopting positions or taking actions that compromise those principles, which they often rationalize by deciding that the good they do outweighs the compromises they make. And the longer they are in office, the less they feel like they have to justify the more and more compromises they make, in light of all the good they’ve done. Until it’s self-evident to them that they can do no wrong.
Of course she will, she’s a Republican. The only way I’ll be suprised would be if any Republicans do not vote in favor. I don’t care what she’s said leading up to this decision, she’s a Republican.
But the left didn’t make up a bullshit rule. The only bullshit rule here has been made up by the GOP.
I like the way that Republicans have tried to weasel out like they weren’t breaking their own standard: Well, you see, you’ve got a congress now and a so-called president. The so-called president is of a certain party, see, and the congress, well the senate anyway, is of the same party, but the house, you see, is controlled by the OTHER party, and by jimminy this is clearly not the same as it was 4 years ago, heh heh heh.
Really? She was on the Appeals court for 11 months before Trump added her to his list. Gorsuch was in the Appeals ct for 7 years, Garland about 20. She is very bright, and has high academic honors, but doesnt really have the kind of experience one would expect for SCOTUS.
Stop. You left out a step. Imagine you work for a company (Congress doesn’t own the country and works for us.), and the last time you were going to hire someone 10 months before the then-CEO was slated to retire, TPTB said it’d be wrong to hire someone that close to the end of the CEO’s tenure. Now you’ve just interviewed a potentially problematic candidate who nonetheless meets the requirements for education and experience, and it’s less than three months before the current CEO is slated to step down. Wouldn’t you hesitate to hire her?
You’d damned well better hesitate.