In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


No, Susan Collins Did Not Say She Would Vote Down Any Roe v. Wade Opponent

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is pretty irritating, I have to admit. She’s always saying, essentially, Well, I don’t know, I just might not be a Republican today, okay?

I guess that’s what a Republican needs to do to survive in the Northeast. Still, it’s annoying.

Anyway, Collins did not say Sunday during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper that she will oppose any Supreme Court nominee who is hostile to Roe v. Wade, as some reports are suggesting. She said she would oppose anyone who admitted it.

“I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade,” she said.

Get it? The key word here is “demonstrated.” Nobody talks like that except attorneys and politicians, who speak very, very carefully – so as to be MISunderstood.

Here’s the full exchange. It occurs near the video at the bottom of this post.

COLLINS: I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade, because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law.

And I believe that that is a very important, fundamental tenet of our judicial system, which, as Chief Justice Roberts says, helps to promote stability and even-handedness.

TAPPER: So, you will not support anyone who has demonstrated hostility towards Roe vs. Wade, but there are plenty of justices that The Federalist Society and other experts likely think will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but they don’t have a record of hostility towards Roe vs. Wade.

For instance, don’t you think, just as an academic matter, Neil Gorsuch, for whom you voted, don’t you think he is probably going to vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade if given the chance?

COLLINS: I actually don’t.

I had a very long discussion with Justice Gorsuch in my office, and he pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent. So, someone who devotes that much time to writing a book on precedent, I think, understands how important a principle that is in our judicial system.

So she tries to bury this whole thing in respecting “precedent.” As if Roe v. Wade is a fine red wine that gets more delicious with age.

On ABC News she went a little further, saying someone who would overturn Roe V. Wade would not be acceptable to her. But again, look closely at what she says. She not going to ask the question:

So a nominee position, whether or not they respect precedent, will tell me a lot about whether or not they would overturn Roe v. Wade. A candidate of this import position who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me, because that would indicate an activist agenda that I don’t want to see a judge have . . .

I don’t like to go into the details of my conversation with the president, but he did tell me that he would not be asking that question. And indeed, it would be inappropriate to ask a judge nominee on how they are going to vote in a future case.

See? She’s going to try to infer his position.

And let’s just note here how deeply ironic it is that she is stating that she doesn’t want an “activist” judge who woiuld overturn Roe v. Wade, when the decision is the most famous example of judicial activism in history.

Yeah, I get precedent. But in matters of life and death, precedent goes out the window. And she knows that. Collins is not making a serious point about judicial philosophy. She is making a serious point about getting reelected in Maine.

But she is not saying she will oppose a conservative justice who would overturn Roe V. Wade.

6 thoughts on “No, Susan Collins Did Not Say She Would Vote Down Any Roe v. Wade Opponent”

  1. Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar industry and a major contributor to Dem political candidates and causes. They never want the money train to end, will fight to keep killing unborn children because it is profitable.
    They never want to compromise to reduce the time when a abortion would be legal, because the older the unborn child, the bigger the money for it’s human organs and parts.
    It’s sickening to think of what they do, who they do it to, and what becomes of human regard when money is involved.

    1. And Susan Collins, along with Lisa Murkowski, fought tooth and nail in 2017 to make sure that Planned Parenthood continued to receive funding from the Federal government–about $500,000,000 a year. Passing the bill would have reduce PP’s funding by 40 percent. Collins and Murkowski disguised their efforts as an effort to “protect women’s health”. Apparently, Collins is not aware of the existence of hospitals where women can actually receive the health care they require. Only Planned Parenthood provides health care for women, apparently. Or so Collins would have us believe.

      I wonder how much campaign money Planned Parenthood gives to Collins. A lot, I’ll bet. She’s an investment for them. They know she’ll come through for them.

  2. And I do not vote for Susan Collins, because she is adamantly for killing the unborn and has full monetary support from Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, NARAL, and other anti-family organizations. She also lied about serving only two terms. Lucrative life she lives, while denying the right-to-life of the unborn. She has a home in Bangor, a camp at Coldstream Pond, a home in D.C. Heights– all since being in the Senate, I believe.

Comments are closed.