“I do believe that [a SCOTUS] nominee should get a hearing,” Murkowski told reporters Wednesday at a question-and-answer session in Juneau, which followed an annual speech to the state Legislature.
Very good, Senator. Do continue.
“That doesn’t necessarily mean that that ends up in a vote. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not this individual, based on their record … should be named to the highest court in the land.”
A hearing and no vote? King Solomon would be proud of how you split that baby, Murkowski.
Fortunately, Murkowski is being challenged for her senate seat by a very capable candidate running as an “independent”, Margaret Stock. I’ve known Ms. Stock for several years, and she would be a magnificent alternative to Ms. Murkowski. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2016/02/immigration-law-prof-and-attorney-margaret-stock-to-run-for-us-senate.html
LikeLike
Interpreting the Constitution is just like interpreting the Bible. Pick out what you like and throw away the rest.
LikeLike
Just to troll everyone, President Obama should nominate Sarah Palin for Justice of the SCOTUS.
LikeLike
Split that baby? Hell, she expertly cut that fucker up like a fryer chicken.
LikeLike