... On Tuesday, however, Alaska Public Media reported the senator said she has now not ruled out voting to confirm Trump’s high court nominee.
“I know everybody wants to ask the question, ‘Will you confirm the nominee?'” Murkowski said outside the Capitol prior to a weekly Republican luncheon.
“We don’t have a nominee yet. You and I don’t know who that is. And so I can’t confirm whether or not I can confirm a nominee when I don’t know who the nominee is,” the senior senator from Alaska said.
She reiterated she did not support moving forward with a confirmation vote, but added, “Now, having said that, this process is moving forward with or without me.”
Go read Jacobson v Massachusetts. Barrett tacitly consented to that piece of case law when she sided with Ellis who used it as "guidance" in the Illinois lockdown case.
Jacobson is scary as fuck and hadn't been used by the courts as precedent for 70+ years, and for good reason, until Ellis and Barret came along. That case law gives the government wayyy too much control over our lives. It's as bad as Wickard v Filburn and Plessy v Ferguson.
She shouldn't have ever been within a mile of concurring with Ellis just based off of Ellis's use of Jacobson. That indicates to me that she's either a statist, has a weak mind, or is close enough to either that I will not support her nomination.
... On Tuesday, however, Alaska Public Media reported the senator said she has now not ruled out voting to confirm Trump’s high court nominee.
“I know everybody wants to ask the question, ‘Will you confirm the nominee?'” Murkowski said outside the Capitol prior to a weekly Republican luncheon.
“We don’t have a nominee yet. You and I don’t know who that is. And so I can’t confirm whether or not I can confirm a nominee when I don’t know who the nominee is,” the senior senator from Alaska said.
She reiterated she did not support moving forward with a confirmation vote, but added, “Now, having said that, this process is moving forward with or without me.”
Go read Jacobson v Massachusetts. Barrett tacitly consented to that piece of case law when she sided with Ellis who used it as "guidance" in the Illinois lockdown case.
Jacobson is scary as fuck and hadn't been used by the courts as precedent for 70+ years, and for good reason, until Ellis and Barret came along. That case law gives the government wayyy too much control over our lives. It's as bad as Wickard v Filburn and Plessy v Ferguson.
She shouldn't have ever been within a mile of concurring with Ellis just based off of Ellis's use of Jacobson. That indicates to me that she's either a statist, has a weak mind, or is close enough to either that I will not support her nomination.
I don't really care how this commie traitor votes. She can go to hell for all I care
She never said she’s voting no. She said she didn’t agree with holding the vote