Key GOP senator says she opposes taking up a Supreme Court nomination before Election Day

[Mrs. Overall]

Source: CNN

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said Sunday that she opposes taking up a Supreme Court nomination prior to Election Day, becoming the second GOP senator this weekend to voice opposition to Senate movement on the matter before the 2020 election.

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

"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. We are now even closer to the 2020 election -- less than two months out -- and I believe the same standard must apply."

Murkowski did not address whether she will oppose President Donald Trump's nominee in a lame-duck session if Joe Biden wins the presidency.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/20/politics/lisa-murkowski-supreme-court-election-day/index.html

[Statistical]

1. Yeah ignoring the lame duck session is really giving off weasel vibes.

"Murkowski did not address whether she will oppose President Donald Trump's nominee in a lame-duck session if Joe Biden wins the presidency."

It would be simple to just say this shouldn't happen before inauguration day. Any politician knows that is the critical date and if they keep talking about election day well that is suspicious as hell.

[Salviati]

12. If they do it during the lame duck session...

... as a president and a senate that have been voted out by the American people, then that just gives more weight to expanding the court.

[COL Mustard]

13. I Really Think The GOP

Will mess this up as only they can. If the American people see this for what it is, a naked power grab, and see the hypocrisy, it'll hurt Trump and the rest of the GOP.

[Salviati]

30. Yeah, I think the smart play would have been to choose the "honorable" route...

To hold off the appointment until the next term, that way they could have used it to rally their base too. But the only way that gambit works, is if you announced it right from the start. To go back on their plan now, makes them look dumb and feckless to their base, to ram it through before or during the lame duck session looks like a power grab or a subversion of the will of the American people. Filling the vacancy before the election takes away it's rallying power for the base, and after the election the optics are terrible. In either case, support to expand the court is just going to grow, more so in the latter case.

[COL Mustard]

33. Unfortunately After The Election

Lame Ducks Trump and McConnell won't care about the optics.

(I hope they're both lame ducks, anyway......)

[Salviati]

34. They should

Because looking like they're subverting the will of the American people is going to drive up support for expanding the court, snatching away the prize that they thought they had won. Plus, I think that it's going to be a needed wake up call to some Democrats that all elected republicans are ghoulish bastards, not to be trusted.

[jorgevlorgan]

27. I think the response to this, assuming they push somebody through

In the lame duck, would be to continuously start impeachment proceedings until inauguration day. This would force the Senate to take up impeachment and not install a justice, preventing Trump from appointing a justice who will hand him the presidency. And then of course, we stack the courts.

[PSPS]

2. They can and will still ram it through between election day and inauguration day.

[turbinetree]

3. But you voted for Gorsuch did you not..............your still a hypocrite.......

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00111

[BComplex]

18. Murkowski is a true republican, because she's a hypocrite through and through.

Same thing happened with impeachment. She'll go along with whatever the republicans tell her to go along with.

There are no republican spines.

[turbinetree]

19. Exactly....................

All they want to do is dismantle the Constitution, then run around waving there treasonous flag with ther concern or he will elarn his lesson................

[Salviati]

31. They do not care about being hypocrites.

There might be some voters out there that care, but the politicians of the republican party do not.

[njhoneybadger]

4. But the day after, no problem

[yuiyoshida]

5. Imma gonna make a prediction here

I am thinking Judge Jeanine Pirro will be Trump's pick. Could you imagine the shit show that would go on in the Supreme Court? Trump will destroy it!

[BKDem]

8. Judge Jeanine is almost as good a speaker as Kimberley Guilfoyle!

But I'm not sure she'd take it unless they start televising the court sessions.

Also, how much does it pay? I don't think she's got any money coming in from her ex-husband, the felon.

[BKDem]

6. Uh, Lisa?

If you're not willing to vote for Trump's pick before the election, shouldn't you vote *against* his choice if he loses?

Or is this really just about YOUR election?

Just another Republican hypocrite.

[groundloop]

20. Exactly, it's about her reelection.

She's doing double-speak so she can bamboozle her voters. She'll be more than happy to vote for tRumps illicit nominee in November.

[moose65]

28. She's not up for re-election this year

Her last election was in 2016.

The funny thing about Murkowski is that most Republicans in Alaska can’t stand her. She lost the Republican primary in 2010, only to win re-election as a write-in candidate. Independents and Democrats are her voters. If she switched parties to unaffiliated, I don’t think she’d lose any support she already has.

[forgotmylogin]

7. So if they wouldn't process Merrick Garland in a "lame duck" session 10 months out...

and Trump loses, wouldn't he even be a lamer duck with no right to choose a SCJ?

I know, rules for them are different and this doesn't matter.

I'm hoping this implies that Murkowski doesn't think a SCJ should be nominated by any outgoing president, but I don't trust anyone.

[FBaggins]

9. Murkowski and Collins can continue to say this - but it has no effect

Neither sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and there is no senate-wide vote on a nomination built into the process until after the hearings. McConnell/Graham have all the power they need to start action on the nomination. (Unless, I suppose, two red senators on the committee oppose)

So even 4+ republican senators saying "we should wait for the new president to nominate someone" wouldn't necessarily keep a nominee from getting to the floor for a vote. It then becomes a question of whether "I disagree with this process" is enough to say "so I will vote down a nominee that comes to a vote"... which is a different thing altogether.

[stopdiggin]

21. exactly right.

I know people are (understandable) anxious about this, but ...
A lot of this breathless anticipation of, "this person said this .." -- means absolutely f*ck-all.

The only real thing transpiring here -- is putting across a sure and certain message that there WILL be a price to pay.

[beachbumbob]

10. Need 4 GOP senators with a shred of integrity, not likely

To stop a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court

[Botany]

11. If this blocks Trump and McConnell from getting somebody on the court prior to the election ....

.... this is @ least a small win and I'll take it but "Murkowski did not address whether she will oppose President Donald Trump's nominee in a lame-duck session if Joe Biden wins the presidency."

When Trump gets crushed in the general election we will see how many of the Republican Senators have
the stomach to ram through somebody but they did put a sexual predator in Kavanaugh on the court
and let Trump off the hook by voting to protect him in the senate after the House impeached him even
though many of them from the senate intel committee knew he was guilty as hell of working with the
Russian in 2016.

[groundloop]

22. Damn straight they'll cram one down our throats.... voters don't have a long enough memory

They now damned good and well that by the time they're up for reelection that voters won't remember nor care what they did.

[AlexSFCA]

14. there is unlikely to be a vote before election

they’ll start the process before election but the vote would likely be after. It’s pretty much certain trump will nominate Amy Barrett. Since Kamala is on judiciary committee, I don’t think gop want to give too much free air time to her prior to election. There won’t be basis for expanding the court if they confirm the justice after the election. Imagine, if it would be the opposite, and dems are in charge, you would be screaming to confirm the justice asap.

[bucolic_frolic]

15. Aw, that's sweet!

How nice it would be if you had any actual commitment to this country's principles and your oath to the Constitution.

[Tommymac]

16. Hate say it...Weasel Words.

Not a goddamn one of THEM will utter a peep if the Killer Clown and his turtle pet puts this to a vote either before or after the election.

Take that to the bank.

Fuckers.

[AlexSFCA]

17. I wonder if Collins loses reelection, how will she vote in lame duck session?

[FBaggins]

23. What do you think about her integrity?

Such high-character individuals sometimes occur in fiction (one of my favorites below).

But do you believe she is one such?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

24. Kick

[SeattleVet]

25. She 'opposes' it...

but she'll still vote for it when the time comes.

What a fucking weasel.

[Flash953]

32. totally all republicans are weasels

[keithbvadu2]

26. A nothingburger statement.

A nothingburger statement. Another article said the White House already acknowledges they can't get a vote before election day.

[cstanleytech]

29. Bet every Republican that says this will vote yes to do it even if they lose

just in spite.