Posted on 10/05/2018 5:38:59 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Friday evening that she opposed Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, becoming the only Republican senator to come out against President Trump's nominee.
"I will be a no tomorrow," Murkowski said in a speech on the Senate floor after describing how she had come to lean against voting to confirm Trump's second nominee to the high court in a final vote on Saturday.
But Murkowski said that in the final tally she would ask that her vote be recorded as "present," saying she was doing it as a courtesy to Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who is slated to attend his daughter's wedding back home on Saturday.
"I do this because a friend, a colleague of ours is in Montana this evening and ... he's going to be walking his daughter down the aisle and he won't be present to vote," Murkowski said. "I have extended this as a courtesy to my friend. It will not change the outcome of the vote."
Murkowski, who voted against ending debate on Kavanaugh earlier in the day Friday, said during her speech on the Senate floor that she "was leaning toward supporting Judge Kavanaugh in his nomination."
"But we know that in our role of advice and consent, it is not just the record itself. There is more that is attached to it," she added, mentioning "matters of temperament" and "demeanor."
Murkowski announced her decision hours after it became clear that Kavanaugh had enough votes to be confirmed.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced during her own speech on the Senate floor earlier Friday that she would back his nomination ahead of a final vote set for Saturday afternoon.
Collins's support gave Republicans the necessary 50 votes to allow Vice President Pence to cast a tie-breaking vote if necessary. Collins was soon joined by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who said he would vote for Kavanaugh, giving him the support of 51 senators.
Murkowski said Friday night that she agreed with many of Collins's comments defending Kavanaugh, saying she didn't think he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade or represented a threat to protections for people with preexisting conditions.
But she indicated that her confidence in his nomination was not high enough to bring herself to voting for him, given controversy swirling around allegations of sexual assault leveled against the nominee.
The Alaska senator acknowledged that it appeared that Kavanaugh would be seated on the Supreme Court "without my vote."
Murkowski pointed to Kavanaugh's combative testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, saying "that appearance of impropriety has become unavoidable."
She called the bitter nomination process for Kavanaugh "horrible" and "gut-wrenching," saying it had left "good people ... needlessly hurt."
I think he’s going to get a ride on Airforce One Helicopter - and then make a grand entrance at his daughter’s wedding - win win
I thought that pairing was done for someone “across the aisle.” But maybe I misunderstood and can be done either way.
But what about Joe Manchin being there and voting for Judge Kavanuagh. Wouldn’t that provide the 51 Senators present to vote (if the wedding Senator stayed to vote before leaving). And then also Vice-President Pence on hand for extra measure. Wouldn’t that be the right way to go about things?
Great name for a delusional beech.
What is it gonna take for Alaskans to put this excuse for a senator on a chunk of ice and push her off into eternity?
These libtards just LOVE MURDERING UNBORN CHILDREN!!
As soon as Kavanaugh is confirmed democrats will drop Dizzy Chrissy like a rabid wolverine.
By election day you won't be able to find a democrat who will admit to remembering who she is.
VP doesn’t count towards a quorum: Constitution requirs “a majority” of *Senators*.
Manchin... yeah, but would the Dems make it ‘worth his while’? I don’t know. They’ve done crazier things to stop Kav.
Mitch wants to avoid any mess and ensure there is a quorum.
” ensure there is a quorum”
More accurate to say “ensure there is a valid vot” that Dems cannot contest in court.
Maybe none of this happens- but Mitch’s job is to make it inpossible.
Yes, I knew VP doesn’t count towards a quorum. Just there in case of a tie.
I thought it required 51 Senators. But from what you’re saying, just a majority of Senators actually present?
You’re probably right.
No A quorum requires a majority of all Senators.
“Pairing” votes counts both voters towards a quorum.
“When less than a quorum votes, but the addition of names of Senators present and paired and announcing votes made a quorum, the vote is valid.” Riddick’s Senate Procedure, p. 1431.”
That’s the Senate rule. So there will be a valid vote. No matter what.
I must be a little thick.
So with wedding Senator gone, the vote is valid because it’s paired. But with wedding Senator there (and with Joe Manchin’s vote), the vote would not be valid. Is that correct?
“(and with Joe Manchin’s vote), “
Joe is not one of Mitch’s “people”. Mitch cannot count on a Democrat- or Mitch wouldn’t be doing his job.
(And NO ONE should ever think themselve ‘thick’ for being perplexed by Senate procedure, rules, or their consequences!)
Although Murkowski has won three full terms to the Senate, she has never won a majority of the vote; she won pluralities in each of her three races, with 48.6% of the vote in 2004, 39.5% in 2010, and 44.4% in 2016.
Effectively a vote against K.
It appears this will be Juan McLame's replacement in the senate.
We are blessed that Flake is leaving and Arizona now has two chances to screw up some more.
Waffling a little because she knows that most Alaskans hate what was done to Kavanaugh and i bet Collins’ speech had something to do with it - a lot more than it being a “courtesy” to Danes....she hasn’t any concept of being courteous.
Feinstein needs to be in prison.
It doesn't matter what the rules allow. There need to be 51 Senators voting for Kavanaugh, otherwise the Dems will declare Kavanaugh's appointment illegitimate. What matters is public perception, not the rule book.
Again, you make fantasy, silly conclusions from what a dingbat does.
I’m not a dingbat.
I’m a life-long conservative, well educated and informed. And I VOTE accordingly.
Ban all dingbats from voting. Ban leftist male dingbats from voting right along with the female dingbats.
But until that happens - which it never will because all of this is fantasy behind a keyboard - then I say how utterly vapid and silly of you...
Either way, if they literally dragged in a man or a woman, it would be used as a smear.
Either it’s the evil white men abusing a woman, or the evil white men ganging up to stick it to women.
She needs to do the right thing and vote FOR Kavanaugh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.