Sullivan and Romney say they’ll consider a Trump nominee for high court

By
Suzanne Downing
-
15

Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska did not go the way of Sen. Lisa Murkowski and say he will refuse to vote on a Supreme Court nomination by President Donald Trump.

Instead, he said if the president nominates someone, as he said he will do this week, the Senate should consider that nomination. That’s the constitutional duty of the Senate, Sullivan said.

“The historical precedent and principle of an election year nomination to the Supreme Court, dating back to the founding of our republic, is that the Senate has generally confirmed a President’s nominee from its own party and not confirmed one from the opposing party. President Trump is well within his constitutional authority to nominate an individual for the Supreme Court vacancy, and the Senate will undertake its advice and consent responsibilities on confirmation, as authorized by the Constitution.

“I have a long record of voting to confirm judges to the federal judiciary who will interpret the law, not make new law, and who will respect the values of Alaskans, particularly as it relates to a robust respect for the Second Amendment, access to our lands, the rights of Alaska Natives, and a skeptical view of the power of federal agencies.

“I look forward to seeing who the President nominates and thoroughly assessing her or his qualifications for this important role, as Alaskans expect me to do.”

Earlier this summer, Murkowski said she would not vote on a nominee for the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, should Ginsburg die before the election.

After Ginsburg’s death last Friday, Murkowski repeated her vow to not vote on a replacement offered by this president. She believes the next president should pick the replacement.

Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah today also issued a statement that he will consider a nomination and vote based on the merits of the individual nominated.

“My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own,” he wrote.
    
“The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications,” Romney wrote.

15 COMMENTS

  1. I trust Sullivan to follow the Constitution, common sense and a conservative conscience on any vote he considers constitutionally correct. I wouldn’t trust Romney. He has declared himself an enemy of President Trump and acted accordingly in several instances. His ‘voting’ record on all things conservative is lacking. A leftist in conservatives clothing?
    Voting will get rid of him too, when his turn comes.

  2. Of course Sullivan will. Boy howdy there would be quite some angst if he didn’t. Lisa is doing her RINO best, bowing to her only constituents, Planned Parenthood and teachers unions. She’s probably already had some visits from Feinstein.

  3. Darn. Now Senator Murkowski is really in a quandary — There will be a vote on a nominee and she will probably have to vote “yes” or “no.”. (I suppose she could take trip somewhere to avoid it…). Perhaps – perhaps – she may think that Alaskans will be impressed with an argument that “high principle” justifies voting “no” to confirm because “the process” is flawed. Talk about empty.

      • In Lisa’s defense, minimally, I would say that Frank was dumber and Lisa dumb. Dubious descendent’s get the pass in this case, as their Catholic progenitor should have first considered wearing that damn little piece of rubber stocking.

  4. Murkowski and Collins need to be impeached for not following the Constitution and going against the president’s sworn duties. They don’t get to make the rules they just swore they would follow them and when they didn’t, they need to be sent home. Let Murkowski make some more noodles down at the farmer’s market.

    • Following this logic, I suppose all those Senators who opposed Mr. Garland’s nomination in 2016 should have also been impeached for “not following the Constitution and going against the president’s sworn duties”.

      • This boils down to law vs. precedent. The Constitution says do it, and 200+ years of precedent, and Biden’s own “Rule” says not to do it. Which one wins? If the roles were reversed, democrats would have someone seated yesterday.

Comments are closed.