Michael Tavoliero: Reject Murkowski, just as she has rejected Alaska’s best interests

18
889

By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

Ernest Gruening wrote in “Colonialism in Alaska,” “Alaska is the oldest of the dependent areas of the United States … Ours is the colony; Alaska its name … and ‘the people of the United States as a whole have also been the losers…’”

In 2022, Alaska is still a colony, and the people of the United States as a whole are still the losers.

The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the district courts in the following states: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Alaska. It is the largest US Circuit Court of Appeals representing over 20% of the US population.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ judicial activism is the “legislative” weapon of choice used by the Left to keep Alaska a colony. Alaska, the colony, is not a sovereign state. It is a region judicially controlled by a distant authority, the federal bureaucracy, through its steadfast enforcer, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals has closed Alaska’s opportunities for sovereignty.

The removal of this closure now has never been more critical to Alaska’s and the nation’s solvency.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has appellate review of a lower court’s ruling and cases. There are 16 judicial jurisdictions under SCOTUS review. The Ninth Circuit Court is included in this number. 

From 2007 to 2021, SCOTUS reviewed and decided 219 Ninth Circuit Court cases. During that span, SCOTUS overturned a total of 176 Ninth Circuit Court cases. This number of cases was more than any other circuit court of appeals.

On February 17, 2021, Murkowski issued a press release titled ” Alaska Delegation Deeply Troubled by Ninth Circuit Decision to Halt Willow Project”. 

The Willow project is a North Slope multi-billion dollar development proposed by ConocoPhillips in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A).

She stated in part, “The Ninth Circuit’s ruling over the weekend is a kick in the gut to Alaska….This decision could lead to a possible delay in the production of hundreds of billions of barrels of oil and desperately needed revenue for the State of Alaska and the federal government…This new North Slope development project gives Alaska a real chance to rebuild and bolster our economy – it is pivotal that the project be allowed to move forward.”

Of the 29 nominations to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals since her appointment to the US Senate on December 20, 2002, Murkowski has voted in favor of 23. 

These broke down as 6 votes in favor of Bush nominations with 1 “Not Voting” nomination, 4 in favor and 2 not in favor of Obama nominations, and 10 in favor of Trump nominations.

Of the 6 Biden nominations to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Murkowski has voted in favor of 3. 

During the Biden administration, Murkowski has voted in favor of 64 out of 84 nominations. Sullivan, Alaska’s junior Senator, has voted in favor of none. 

Is it important to understand that Murkowski only focuses on professional qualifications, while Sullivan weighs his decision on ideology, in a time where Marxism has never been more pervasive in the United States?

As senior Senator for the Alaska, one of the most bountiful natural resource development states in the nation and the world, Murkowski betrayed the voters who elected her, the Republicans who supported her election, and the Alaska Republican Party by her repeatedly siding with Democrats and against every one of her Republican colleagues in supporting the confirmation of radical appointees to the federal judiciary, especially to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and SCOTUS.

When challenged on the wisdom of these actions she has declared publicly that judicial nominees “deserve an up or down vote”, regardless of which President appointed them.

What does that have to do with confirming judicial radical nominees to the US Court system who share an ideology which is repugnant to our nation’s?

When President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Senate voted to move his nomination to an up or down vote, Sen. Murkowski sided with Democrats and against every one of her Republican colleagues by attempting to deny Judge Kavanaugh a confirmation vote in the Senate. 

It was one of the most disgusting SCOTUS confirmations in history.

When the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh came before the U.S. Senate, Senator Murkowski voted against the confirmation by requesting simply to be listed “Present”, thereby denying Judge Kavanaugh his 51st vote, making him the only Supreme Court Justice in history to be confirmed to the Supreme Court by less than a majority of U.S. Senators. 

She explained her vote of “Present” as a courtesy to a fellow Republican, Senator Steve Daines, saying that she hopes “it reminds us that we can take very small, very small steps to be gracious with one another, and maybe those small gracious steps can lead to more.”.

“Small gracious steps”! The arrogance of royalty is great in Lisa Murkowski.

While her vote had no effect whatsoever on this fellow Republican Senator, other than to now be associated in the public eye with Murkowski’s behavior, it appeared much more the case that her change of vote to “Present” was made to appease Democrats by minimizing the negative repercussions to Democrat Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia in his re-election race against Republican West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.

By voting “present”, Sen. Murkowski removed Democrat Senator Joe Manchin as the deciding vote in Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, thereby depriving the Morrisey campaign of a crucial vote that would have almost certainly proved politically fatal in a state in which President Trump won by 68% to Clinton’s 26%, the largest vote share garnered by Trump of any state. 

Think about this one move to deny a Republican in a red state a seat in the US Senate orchestrated by Murkowski and the leadership of the US Senate. Senator Murkowski’s actions assisted Senate Democrats in their attempts to retain a seat that might otherwise have been lost to them.

In 2020, Murkowski opposed moving forward with Amy Coney-Barrett’s nomination since it was so close to the presidential election, although she ultimately voted for Coney-Barrett after Republicans decided to push forward the nomination anyway.

If Kavanaugh’s and Coney-Barrett’s nomination to SCOTUS had not been confirmed, bureaucracies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, may have continued to maintain authority over major environmental policy. Their judicial participation helped lead SCOTUS to a 6-3 decision on West Virginia v. EPA. This was a major blow to the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan rule by removing EPA’s authority to reduce greenhouse (GHG) emissions from coal-fired power plants. 

Murkowski is the second most frequent GOP supporter of Biden’s nominees. Along with Collins (R-ME) and Romney (R-UT), she was one of just three Republican senators to vote to confirm Biden Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

With the kickoff of SCOTUS’ 2022 term, the questions raised in the upcoming argument in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the overreach of the EPA’s Clean Water Act may have never seen the light of day without Cavanaugh’s and Coney-Barrett’s confirmation.

Is Murkowski really working for Alaska? Reject Murkowski. Vote for Kelly Tshibaka.

Michael Tavoliero is a realtor in Eagle River, is active in the Alaska Republican Party and chaired Eaglexit.

18 COMMENTS

  1. Great outlay of the facts Mike! I’ve long said that Lisa-A has been an utter disappointment and embarrassment to the Republican Party. She doesn’t stand for any of the Party Platform positions. And, she doesn’t listen to her Republican constituency. Rather, she only feeds her narcissistic power-hungry ego. It’s long time to send her packing! When I voted, I voted Kelly-T first, a write-in second, third went to someone else, and Lisa “last’ where I hope every voter ranks her.

  2. Well-written, Mr.Tavoliero. And well-stated indeed. Lisa has rejected Catholicism, Conservatism and her parents. We’re waiting to be freed by Kelly.

    • Nancy and I were going to do a campaign tv ad for Kelly, but we saw what that did to the Palin family. They need serious help. btw, go NB3!

  3. Lisa said she believed Blasey Fords accusations were credible. Thirty years old, no supporting witness, nada. I do not find Lisa credible.

    • Bret was a fratboy who reveled in his silver spoon status in college, I saw plenty of those jerks at the university I attended. Rather than admit he was a testosterone fueled typical juvenile male, he lied to the Senate about his youthful stupidity most boys go through. Not someone I would look up to, at least ACB was not evasive about her dogma.

  4. Makes me wonder why she was not ejected from the Republican party and not simply ASKED to leave. There are more of these types in the party than just Lisa.

  5. Michael is the anti-government dude that wants government to pay to evaluate Eagle exit, now he wants us to believe that Senator Murkowski who brought $Billions to Alaska for infrastructure does not work for Alaska. Really? Will Michael stay in Alaska, or leave with Kelly T after she loses.

    • Brought billions to AK? To be used on… what exactly?
      With that kind of money, we should have roads and bridges connecting most of southeast AK. Where is it?
      The road to Nome? Where?
      .
      So, she did toss a few $$$ our way, but then voted for a radical environmentalist as Secretary of the Interior. Anyone with half a brain could foresee and end of drilling/mining permits. But, Lisa voted yes to make sure she did not lose the native vote. In other words, she voted to save her own backside, not to help AK. Same with Brett Kavanaugh. Could have voted No, and retained the abortion vote, but she would lose the GOP vote. Could have voted yes, and done the opposite. Instead, she voted Present to save both votes (or so she thought).
      .
      If AK benefits from anything Lisa does it is because she cannot preserve her own seat in the Senate without it. All benefits are accidental.

    • You ignore the costs of that graft Princess has brought us.

      You also ignore Princess has her own pet projects which supersede others in funding priorities.

      You also ignore the people of Eagle River are taxpayers, too, and have every right to want to see money forcibly take from them used to their benefit.

      Frank, if you’re not gonna even try, maybe go watch West Wing on streaming.

    • To big government, big socialist Frank Rast:
      Go jump in the Inlet and rescue Lisa from the bore tide. She’s about to drown.

    • Frank, kindly elaborate on the billions for infrastructure and how they have been physically deployed. Speak of the actual work accomplished and not just the paper dream that has been woven…
      .
      Are we talking about the Bridge to Nowhere across the Tanana near Salcha, where Congress mandated that the steel had to be purchased from China? Is that what you mean?

        • Joe,
          Actually, that could be, because my source was that I read it in the paper, back in the day. I can assure you that I would not intentionally tell a lie.
          Remember when one of the trucks hauling one of those massive steel beams got to close to the edge of the Richardson Highway, tipped over, the beam twisted slightly, and a new one had to be manufactured and shipped from China?

        • Searching online I was able to find these, in case you are interested:
          ‘https://www.asce-pgh.org/widget/Blog/3887321 -apparently the girder eventually was adopted and taken into the Bridge’s family…
          ‘https://www.roadsbridges.com/bridges/article/10646973/taming-the-beast
          ‘https://www.rtands.com/track-construction/track-structure/bridges-tunnels/robust-design-behind-the-tanana-river-bridge/
          ‘https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/10_26_11_CapitalTradeSOEStudy.pdf -This last one, which is very interesting from a current events and recent history perspective, came up in the search, but I could not find the TRB in it, specifically, nor the Defense Appropriations language that specified foreign materials, but as I recall, it was there, and I bet someone out there has a keener understanding about how to find it, a lot easier than I can.

          • Reading the citations provided, the girders appear to be sourced in China. I am assuming this is mainland China and not Taiwan, so the source for steel used to build this bridge is China. Thank you for the clarification. My apology for jumping to wrong conclusion. The old “Buy America” provisions in US law have apparently been circumvented or specifically waived for this particular project. Sad to see. No wonder we are diminishing as a nation. Using our funds to buy steel products for our strategic infrastructure is poor policy.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.