Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins says they won't vote on Ruth Bader Ginsburg replacement before electio

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Sen. Lisa Murkowski definitively said Sunday she does not support voting on a nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court before the Nov. 3 election, repeating a belief she had expressed previously when the question was theoretical.

"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.

Hours before Ginsburg's death was announced, Murkowski told Alaska Public Media on Friday she would not vote on a nominee so close to an election. She cited the decision in 2016 not to move forward with a vote on Merrick Garland, who was nominated by then-President Barack Obama in March, because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell thought it should be left up to the voters in November.

"The closer you get to an election, that argument becomes even more important," she said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lisa-murkowski-susan-collins-says-they-won-t-vote-on-ruth-bader-ginsburg-replacement-before-election/ar-BB19eycB?li=BB141NW3&ocid=DELLDHP

[grumpyduck]

1. Collins?

I'll believe it when i see it.

[Bev54]

5. Sorry I do not believe Collins

She is under investigation for corruption and ethics violations and is easily blackmailed by moscow mitch each and every time.

[Takket]

2. i don't believe either of them

the temptation to install a rock solid right wing SCOTUS for the next generation is too great. or they will just recant in the lame duck session.

the word is a rethug is absolutely useless.

[hauckeye]

3. But what about in the lame duck session?

[StTimofEdenRoc]

6. Exactly

[spooky3]

10. Yes. These statements are too Nixon-ian to be

reassuring. They should say they refuse to vote until the next President takes office and the new Senate is in session.

[aquamarina]

11. Double exactly

[Thekaspervote]

13. Exactly!! That's a totally hollow promise...typical

[Bleacher Creature]

14. Bingo. NT

[jorgevlorgan]

4. Still waiting on romney and grassley to make a statement on this.

It would be nice to know that we will at least have until the election to avoid a scotus Trump appointment (crude way to describe scotus attempt to override the election)

[UTUSN]

7. "by the President who is elected on November 3rd" - o.k. so no Lame Duck vote if BIDEN wins.

Before-the-Election, After-the-Election.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. ..until they will.

Trust neither of them.

[DonaldsRump]

9. Just remember that the Repubs impeached President Clinton in the 1998 lame duck session

AFTER the Ds scored big wins that year in the November 1998 mid-terms. That was a disastrous move for them, and it resulted in horrible people like Newt Gingrich resigning.

There can be silver linings, even in terrible tragedies.

[mn9driver]

12. These statements mean nothing.

If Trump loses the election, they will both vote in his nominee during the lame duck session *after* the election. Count on it.

[Statistical]

15. Anyone saying "not before the election" is lying by omission.

Would be just as easy to say "I won't vote to confirm any replacement until after inauguration day". Perfectly clear zero ambiguity. Doesn't take any more word. Anyone not saying that is trying to leave open ambiguity. They are saying vote for me I am a moderate and then after the election will vote to confirm.

[unblock]

16. Exactly. They will vote in the lame duck session to escape accountability

[SeattleVet]

17. They didn't say they wouldn't vote on it...

just that they were opposed to it.

Watch what they do, not what they say.

"While I'm opposed to holding the hearings and a vote this close to the election, since it's happening anyway I will cast my vote for whatever slimeball tRump nominates."

[not_the_one]

18. Semantics. They apparently think most Americans are dumber than a doorknob.

The day after the election they will vote to confirm and then CROW about them keeping their word.

J. F. C.

[Talitha]

19. Sorry about being so gross, but

I don't trust them farther than I can piss.

And I'm a girl !!!

[backscatter712]

20. Focus on the targets.

Cory Gardner, for one.

I know Lindsey Graham already said he'd vote to confirm Trump's goon, but keep on him anyways. He said he wouldn't four years ago, then went back on his word, even though he's on video saying we should use his words against him. Well, since you asked LadyG... The general idea isn't so much to convince him, as to reduce his campaign and political career to ruins, and make an example of him to the other pieces of shit.

Also, Mitt Romney - he's been grooming to take the role of "Grown adult who'll rehab the GOP after Trump's gone." He very well might be up for putting a knife in Trump's back...

And every other GOP senator that's up for re-election, especially if they're falling behind in the polls.