Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said on the Senate floor Wednesday night that her constituents' "overwhelming concern" about Second Amendment issues compelled her to vote against Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation. But that doesn't mean she thinks it was appropriate for the National Rifle Association to score the vote. Murkowski also speculated that Alaska's other senator, Democrat Mark Begich, is facing a similar amount of pressure from constituents on the same issue; he is one of just a few Democrats who have not announced their votes.
NationalJournal.com's Amy Harder spoke with Murkowski on Wednesday night. Excerpts of the interview follow.
NJ: You kept reiterating how important your constituents' concerns were. What were their primary worries?
Murkowski: I would say that the overwhelming concern coming from people back at home was specific to the Second Amendment -- a great deal of concern about where they felt Judge Sotomayor might take the protections that we recognized or provided under the Second Amendment.
NJ: Toward the end of your remarks, you said that your vote was not influenced by interest groups. I'm assuming you were referring to, among others, the National Rifle Association. Does the organization have any indirect influence on your vote, insofar as many gun owners are active in the NRA?
Murkowski: We were hearing from our constituents on this issue long before the NRA weighed in with their letter. And I will tell you, I've had conversations with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I've had conversations with people that are supporting Judge Sotomayor and opposing Judge Sotomayor. And those of us who represent constituents that are very protective about the Second Amendment right, I think it's fair to say that we are -- I am a bit concerned that the NRA weighed in and said they were going to score this. I don't think that was appropriate.
NJ: Why?
Murkowski: Because a vote on a Supreme Court justice, in my mind, should be free from those political interest groups that are going to pressure you and you're thinking, 'Oh gosh, it's going to ruin my score with the NRA,' or whatever group it is. That should not ever factor in when it is a vote of this consequence. I don't have any objection of them stating their position just as any other group would weigh in and say 'we support' or 'we oppose,' but this whole notion of scoring the vote -- it's my understanding that they have never weighed in and scored a vote. They should not have done it in this occasion.
NJ: Your fellow senator, Mark Begich, is one of a few Democrats yet to announce how they're going to vote. Do you think he is going to face similar pressure?
Murkowski: I can tell you that the feedback that we have gotten from people from this state has been overwhelming on this. I have to figure if they're sending messages to me, they're also pushing the send button to Senator Begich. I am quite sure that he is hearing from Alaskans who are quite -- they're really plugged in on certain issues, and certainly a nomination to the Supreme Court justice is right up there.
NJ: Do you think he would be the one Democrat to vote "no"?
Murkowski: That I don't know. That I don't know. I haven't heard whether he is going to be speaking to it, but if I have been receiving this kind of input from folks back home, I'm sure he has as well.
NJ: Your new position as the vice chairwoman of the Senate Republican Conference has put you in one of the key leadership positions. Conservatives say they have been watching how you were going to vote closely --
Murkowski: I think it's only because I'm the only one who was keeping it a secret. Everybody else blabbed, so there was no mystery there [laughs].
NJ: Has this new position put you in a role where you feel a bigger responsibility to represent the party's larger goals?
Murkowski: With this nomination that we had before us, I didn't survey the other folks on the leadership team to see where they were going. I paid attention to what everyone was doing and read their comments as we were developing the response to be delivered tonight. But I will tell you, it is such an important issue back home. For me, it doesn't make any difference whether I'm in leadership or I'm low man on the totem pole, this is something that I have to represent my constituents first.
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Ninth Justice does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
Responded on August 7, 2009 6:35 AM
BambiB
The NRA "scoring the vote" only means that come election time, the members of the NRA will be reminded of how well their Senators represented the wishes of their constituents.
If a senator voted to confirm AGAINST the wishes of their constituents, wouldn't any entity be doing them a service to REMIND them of that fact at the time of the next election?
I look forward to being reminded of the treasonous behavior of my representatives who voted for Sotomayor, and the Obama "bailouts".
When a representative fails to represent their constituents, it shouldn't make it less important just because it happened earlier in their term. I've noticed that many times, the only time elected "representatives" are on their "good" behavior is right before an election. Scoring their performance helps to keep them on good behavior even when an election ISN'T right around the corner.