Somebody got to Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. As recently as Wednesday, Murkowski went on the record, saying “I do believe that [Obama’s Supreme Court Justice] nominee should get a hearing.” She was noncommittal about whether the nominee should actually get a vote, but seemed to take it as a given that Obama would nominate someone, and she was crystal clear that that person should get the courtesy of a hearing.
Now she’s backtracked from that position and is urging the president to follow a non-existing precedent and simply leave the nominating to the next president.
Many Alaskans want to know where I stand regarding the appointment of a nominee to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. (1/5)
— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 19, 2016
While POTUS has Constitutional prerogative to recommend a nominee to the Senate, it is left to the Senate to determine how to proceed. (2/5)
— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 19, 2016
Given the timing of this vacancy, in the middle of an election, the American people will be weighing in on the direction of SCOTUS. (3/5)
— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 19, 2016
I urge Pres. Obama to follow a tradition embraced by both parties and allow his successor to select the next Supreme Court justice. (4/5)
— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 19, 2016
If POTUS ignores precedent, I believe extraordinary circumstances give the Senate every right to deny the nominee an up or down vote. (5/5)
— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 19, 2016
I feel the need to offer a little context here. Murkowski was appointed to serve out her father’s Senate term when he died in office was elected governor in 2002. In 2004, she was elected to a full six-year term. In 2010, however, Sarah Palin came out against her and she lost a hotly contested primary to a Tea Bagger named Joe Miller. After trying and failing to get on the Libertarian Party ballot line, she launched a write-in campaign. Amazingly, Joe Miller was so extreme that she actually became the first candidate since Strom Thurmond in 1954 to be elected as a write-in candidate. At the time, the Associated Press remarked:
Murkowski will return to Washington owing nothing to tea party activists, who largely opposed her, or to the Republican Party, which supported Miller after the primary. Though she plans to caucus with Republicans, she said she won’t be beholden to any special interests or party – an initial sign that she may not try to reclaim her leadership post within the GOP conference. She voluntarily resigned it in deciding to make her outsider run.
With this context in mind, if there is anyone in the Republican Senate Caucus who might be inclined to buck the lunatics and insist that the president has the right to nominate someone and the nominee is owed the courtesy of a vote, it’s Lisa Murkowski. She’s already demonstrated that she can survive in Alaska even if beaten by a primary challenger. The Republican Party wasn’t loyal to her. The GOP actively tried to defeat her. Her support back home came from Native Americans, teachers, firefighters and plenty of ordinary Democrats who preferred her to Joe Miller and Sarah Palin.
But, someone got to her anyway.
This is pretty depressing, but totally consistent with what I predicted.
Tweet # 4 in the series is such an offensively bald-faced lie. Sincerely hope she gets buried by people letting her know that they know she lied.
I also love the fact that casual social media is becoming the chosen way for politicians to shovel the bullshit out there.
1844-45 is the last time a President’s SCOTUS nominees were obstructed for the length of time the Senate Republican Caucus is preparing to do here.
Well, thank the Lord, the Senator got pounded all right:
https://twitter.com/lisamurkowski/status/700482929869377536
James Fallows @JamesFallows Feb 18
@lisamurkowski OK, if this is a tradition, what is ANY example of it occurring before?
Jonathan Jewel @JonathanJewel 23h23 hours ago
@Arianna8927 @JamesFallows this is what @lisamurkowski said in 2005 – opposite of today of course http://juneauempire.com/stories/050905/opi_20050509001.shtml#.VsaVxfIrLIW …
Bo Tian @magicbotian Feb 18
@JamesFallows @lisamurkowski obviously she’s referring to her party’s tradition of making things up. Am I right Senator?
They call me AJ @apettibone 11h11 hours ago
@EricKleefeld @GreenEyedLilo @lisamurkowski Why is “tradition” always brought up by Repubs only when their argument is devoid of merit?
Lincoln Michel @TheLincoln Feb 18
.@lisamurkowski there has never been time where a president didn’t nominate a SCOTUS judge for a vacancy. How on earth is this a tradition?
iburl @iburl Feb 18
@AndyOplas @cacisor @timgibson @lisamurkowski the “precedent” is that you racist GOP pigs hate Obama and pretend he was not re-elected.
Robert A Stribley @stribs Feb 18 Manhattan, NY
@lisamurkowski I wonder, do you feel at all uncomfortable or lose any sleep after posting misinformation/lying publicly like this?
Michi @cbn2 Feb 18
.@lisamurkowski I am frankly deeply disappointed that you would tweet something so obviously partisan and historically inaccurate.
Dave Nicolai @kitaq Feb 18
@lisamurkowski please stop encouraging the current status of American politics. Please be the Lisa we used to know.
On and on it goes. Hilariously, the sole guy who busily defends Murkowski in the response thread lists in his personal information “Consultant for World Bank.” Perfect!
love that -tradition of making things up
Well, I guess you’ll have to pull Alaska’s favorite daughter from the GOoPer Profiles in Courage list, ha-ha. Not that there’s anyone on it! All it took was Leader Mitch to poke his head into Lisa’s office for her to quickly beat a twitter retreat.
The important thing here are the absurd lies the “conservative” movement are spewing to justify this latest obstruction and dereliction of duty—that there is some established “precedent” they are simply following and that “both parties do it”. This is categorically false; it is obviously, objectively false to anyone (“journalists” included!) who looks into it for about 4 seconds.
Yet the lie has been taken hook, line and sinker by the corrupt corporate media, demonstrating that there simply is no lie by Repubs, however blatant, on which they will call a foul. Thus, there is no hope of the rubes in AK (or anywhere else) of figuring out the truth of the GOoP’s incorrigible extremism.
Those hoping that some how, some way, this latest GOoP ploy of extreme obstruction will be the straw that broke the camel’s back, and that the scales will finally fall from the eyes of “the people” are doomed to disappointment, I fear.
If the GOoP isn’t called on a lie of this magnitude and absolute demonstrable objective falsity by the corporate media, they never will be.
The President of the United States has to wait until the fight actually starts. Give him a month to send up a nominee, and another month for the Republican (non)response.
He is not going to sit by and let this happen. He may not be able to force the Republicans to act, but he can make sure the Republican obstruction is the number one issue in the election campaign.
You make some good points vis Murkowski, especially how she beat the odds to win her seat with no real support from the R-Tribe. But she’s among a smallish group of R-Tribe Senators who started off saying pretty much what she did, and they have all retracted that and started pumping out these LIES.
Someone got to Lisa. Too bad. It was either a threat of some sort and/or someone promised her something.
Corrupt to the core. The whole frickin lot of them.
The D party is odious and loathsome, but these predatory jackals and parasites are just disgusting. I’m not a fan of Obama, but I am so thoroughly sick of how the R-Team uses his ethnicity to blow their racist dog whistles to justify their odious and objectionable obstructionism of everything.
ptoui! A pox on all of their houses.
WHat DA PHUQ IS
‘ The tradition embraced by both parties’?
WHAT DA PHUQ IS THAT?
The Senator lied, and she knows she lied. So do we:
http://juneauempire.com/stories/050905/opi_20050509001.shtml#.VsfiLPkrLIX
My Turn: Judicial filibusters: Squishy or thoughtful?
Posted: Monday, May 09, 2005
By SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI
The use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate and the president’s judicial nominations have certainly been popular topics of conversation in recent weeks. Print ads, radio spots, and television commercials have all highlighted the irrefutable harm – or unquestionable good, depending on your point of view – that the filibuster represents. What is not often mentioned is the impact this debate could have on other items of importance to the country and Alaska, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the energy bill, health care, and the highway bill.
Let me make it clear that I support an up-or-down vote on all nominations brought to the Senate floor, regardless of the president nominating them or which party controls the Senate. These nominees deserve to be considered based on their merits. Under the “advice and consent” process, every senator has the right to vote against a nominee if he/she does not believe the nominee is qualified for the position, but it is not fair to the nominees to have their lives placed on hold, sometimes in excess of two years. Nor is it right to perpetuate the many vacancies in our courts, particularly when we are seeing the caseload exceed the capacity of the sitting judges.
Last Congress, 10 of the president’s judicial nominees were filibustered. The impasse over these nominees has led the Senate majority leader to consider the possibility of seeking a ruling that the use of the filibuster on judicial nominees is unconstitutional, thus allowing an up-or-down vote on their confirmation. Some have dubbed this the “nuclear option.” Democrats have threatened to shut down the Senate through procedural tactics, such as the filibuster, if this ruling is agreed to.
There is plenty of blame to go around as to which side has stopped judges in the past, whether on the floor or in committee. But this misses the point of where we are today. The argument shouldn’t be about whether we invoke the constitutional option, or “go nuclear,” but how we make the confirmation process work. We need to act together as senators to define what is best for the institution. Constructive dialogue over how we achieve the goal, a fair process to confirm fair judges, is necessary.
In April 2003, I joined with all of my fellow freshmen senators in writing to Majority Leader Frist and then Minority Leader Daschle expressing our concern about the breakdown in the federal judicial nomination and confirmation process. We expressed our hope for a “bipartisan solution that will protect the integrity and independence of our nation’s courts, ensure fairness for judicial nominees, and leave the bitterness of the past behind us.”
What happens if we cannot reach that agreement? At stake for Alaska is much more than whether a judicial nominee is confirmed or not.
For the first time in ten years, the Senate has included a provision in the budget resolution to open ANWR. The House passed an energy bill that includes ANWR along with a number of other provisions that will benefit Alaska. The Senate has taken up the highway bill that contains a considerable amount of federal dollars for Alaska’s infrastructure development. But if the Senate is paralyzed because of the dispute over judicial nominees, none of these bills become law and Alaska does not see the benefits. Alaska has a tremendous opportunity this year in the U.S. Senate in terms of developing our resources, our economy, and our future. None of this, however, will matter much if the Senate is locked in partisan wrangling over judicial nominations.
I remain committed to a constructive solution and have encouraged Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle to find another way, to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees while respecting the traditions of the Senate. It is my sincere hope that we will be able to reach a compromise to enact legislation to stimulate our economy, protect national security, and promote the national welfare, and to provide advice and consent, and to vote on the president’s nominations.
* Lisa Murkowski is a U.S. senator from Alaska.
Your remark about Democrats voting for Murchowski because they preferred her to Sarah Palin is a non sequitur, as Palin was not running for the US Senate.
As to why Democrats in Alaska vote for GOP candidates (or stealth GOP candidates like Murchowski), I offer an anecdote:
A co-worker on a scientific field project I once did in Alaska was a Fairbanks resident who told me that he was a Democrat and also that he voted for Ted Stevens, the other (at the time) GOP senator from Alaska, at every election. When I asked why he would do that, he stated quite candidly that it was because Stevens was a genius at pork barrel politics. (Does “The Bridge to Nowhere”, for example, ring any bells with readers?)
Alaska is a bizarre place. Prior to the 2nd World War and the Cold War, the US presence in the territory was minimal. The first big infusion of $$ came because of the concern of Japanese attacks. The Cold War brought in much more. Alaska as a political entity would not exist except for federal largesse. Yet the inhabitants, of whichever political party affiliation, have convinced themselves that they’re Rugged Individualists and that it’s someone else suckling at the federal teat.
As I pointed out, Sarah Palin went after Murkowski in a spasm of revenge for past slights. She rallied Republicans against Murkowski in the primary and it became almost a proxy battle between the two of them. So, no, phrasing it that way was not a non sequitur, and it shouldn’t have been confusing, either, because I already had said who the candidate was, and that was Joe Miller.
Hm. Sorry, you’re right & I mis-read things.
Maybe this is a chance for Obama to make voting day a holiday in 2016 via executive action? I mean, if enough GOPeople are saying that the people should decide on the next court nominee, maybe they give him a political opening?
“Murkowski was appointed to serve out her father’s Senate term when he died in office in 2002.”
Someone has to be pedantic here, so why not me?
Frank Murkowski is alive and (I assume) well. He was elected governor of Alaska in 2002, vacating his Senate seat, and appointed his daughter to replace him.
As much as I want to see an Obama nominee confirmed, I really doubt it is going to happen. The Republicans have no shame, and it really seems that both wings of the Republican party (crazy & money) are united against it happening.
Even though most of the Supreme Court’s decisions aren’t decided by a 5-4 majority, too many major ones have been in recent years for the court to not be a political football, and way too much is at stake now. Democrats should understand that the odds of enough Republicans returning to the tradition of deference to the president to confirm a nominee are slim to none. We might get a vote if McConnell knows that he can defeat it, otherwise its going to be nothing but obstruction.
This is a political fight. Like it or not, the Supreme court has become (really since at least Bush v. Gore and obviously after citizen’s united) as much a political entity as anything. We should really limit the length of a Supreme Court Justice’s term so that these battles don’t have such high stakes, but that’s not going to happen in this environment. Not to state the obvious but Democrats need to stop wishing for sanity on the Republican side and gear up for a long political battle (i.e. they need the voters on their side) and make sure that they win at least the Senate or the presidency in the next election.
This is one of those rare occasions where I could see your prediction being ultimately off base. Already, there have been several newspapers denouncing this Republican nonsense. Obama’s going to appoint someone both qualified and compelling. If he doesn’t even get a hearing, there will be heat on those Senators who have to answer to a diverse electorate. If there’s a hearing, there will be pressure to vote (and to break any filibuster). We’ll see how this plays out. Either way, I see Republicans paying a real price.
The Republicans should confirm the choice and take the issue off the table. If they do not, I think we are going to watch Barack Obama win another election.
Well she IS facing re-election, and last time she lost the primary. Bet she got all scared of the tea-tards comin’ after her a second time, with the GOtP putting somebody a wee bit smarter than Joe Miller this time.
GOtPers spineless when it comes to principles if they fear for their place in the pig-sty.
This time around, Murkowski has an outstanding challenger (running as an independent), Margaret Stock. She’s absolutely no “Joe Miller”. Here’s a link describing her background: http://www.adn.com/article/20160217/anchorage-attorney-margaret-stock-challenging-lisa-murkowski-sen
ate
I’ve known Margaret for a number of years as one of the better (and one of the most respected) immigration lawyers in the country, whose work on behalf of military families (she has presented testimony before Congress on a number of occasions) has made a real difference. I think that Murkowski’s flip-flop is her way of positioning herself now that she has a credible opponent.