Collins: I Would Not Support A Nominee Who Demonstrated Hostility To Roe V. Wade
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said Sunday that she would not support a Supreme Court nominee who had “demonstrated hostility” toward Roe v. Wade , “because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions,” a nd that President Donald Trump “may not have been informed” when he pledged to make abortion a litmus test during the presidential campaign.
Collins and a handful of other potential swing votes on the President’s future nominee met with Trump Thursday.
In an interview with Collins, who characterized Roe as “settled law” and “a constitutional right that is well-established,” CNN’s Jake Tapper Sunday played footage of Trump telling him in 2015 that opposition to abortion would be a litmus test when picking Supreme Court nominees.
“The President told me in our meeting that he would not ask that question, and that is what he has most recently said on the advice of his attorney,” Collins responded. “So I think what he said as a candidate may not have been informed by the legal advice that he now has that it would be appropriate for him to ask a nominee how he or she would rule on a specific issue.”
Tapper pressed: “There are plenty of justices that the Federalist Society and other experts likely think will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade but 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’s probably going to vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade if given the chance?”
“I actually don’t,” Collins said.
“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,” she said. “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.”
Collins said that in her recent meeting with Trump, she “encouraged the President to broaden his list beyond the list of 25 nominees that has been public for some time.” She said she wasn’t comfortable with everyone on the list, and that there were names on it that she had not vetted.
Leonard Leo — the anti-abortion Federalist Society executive vice president currently on leave to advise the President on Supreme Court nominees, and the originator of Trump’s campaign-era list of potential nominees — has been careful to note that names on the list have not taken a public stance on abortion.
“None of the people who are being talked about now in the public space in the media are people who have a clear position on Roe v. Wade,” he said, as quoted by the Washington Free Beacon.
Watch below:
On #CNNSOTU with @jaketapper @SenatorCollins says that she would not vote for a SCOTUS nominee who "demonstrates hostility" to Roe v. Wade https://t.co/Iqmv3x91w8
— State of the Union (@CNNSotu) July 1, 2018
Tags
Who is online
82 visitors
I saw that interview. Collins is leaving the door open to vote for Trump's far right anti abortion pick on the basis that the nominee will not have openly signaled hostility to Roe v Wade.
She is paving the way for her own ignominy.
Maybe she actually believes in the Constitution and wants non activist judges. At any rate her state of Maine will still have legal abortions even if Roe were overturned.
She is creating the fig leaf that voting for a hard right anti-abortion justice will be ok because he will not have openly declared before his confirmation that he (or she) is anti- Roe v Wade. It is a ruse designed to give so called moderates and pro womens rights Republicans like Collins cover.
Maybe.
But IMO what's more likely is that she's trying to play it both ways-- hoping that when she's up for re-election she will not have alienated people on either side of the abortion debate.
Actually the cynicism is quite natural after watching the Gorsuch hearing and the other confirmation hearings for the unqualified nut jobs that Trump has nominated for the bench.
After Bork was destroyed, the Republicans have learned to be coy about how they will answer the inquisition (Democrats), or not.
.
Exactly-- and that's a key point.
She did not say that she would vote for someone who wants to repeal Roe v Wade. Rather, she said she would not vote for someone who openly expressed hostility towards it...
And that a major difference!
(P.S: The republicans are being smart the way they are playing this...(many of them are not openly expressing hostility) and many gullible Democrats are falling for their tactics...)
Oh, the Republicans have learned soooo much from the Democrats in the last couple decades.
If they are on the Federalists list, they should be disqualified.
I thought y'all insisted that Trump wouldn't follow the status quo. What happened to that?
Sound political strategy.
When the "strategy" is that transparent the only ones that will buy it are the Trumpsters.
I think her base will be quite satisfied.
Abortion is based on a right to privacy that isn’t mentioned in the constitution at all. The court made the right up as though they were the founding fathers or a legislature. Since it’s not a right under the constitution, the court should have left the matter to the states. Nevertheless, any judge can say that he has no intention of overturning Roe (which can be true) and also say that he can’t prejudge his opinion on matters that have yet to come before him, which will allow him to chip away at Roe in future rulings. What one judge can do on a personal whim, another judge can undo the same way. If you want an actual right, the only way to get it is to amend the constitution.
4th amendment
Yeah, only 1 current judge has voted to overturn Roe. Assuming all 4 supposed justices want to overturn it, I'd be shocked if Roberts votes to overrule it on a 5-4 basis. It's much more likely to move it gradually away from abortion on demand to a more European like system where the right to an abortion only exists in the first trimester and allows for more regulation after. Eventually it might be formally overturned if the vote is 6 or 7, but it won't be any time soon.
But if your argument is that the Federal Courts can't rule on it because its not in the U.S. Constitution--- then wouldn't it be consistent to say the States can't rule on it either because its no in their State Consttiution?
That sounds more than a bit hypocritical to me...
(Of course if neither the Federal Gov't nor the Stste Govwernments can rule on it since its not in their Constitutions...our only hope is to let the indvidiual counties rule on it...although if its not in their Constitutions either ...perhaps each Electiion District should be able to rule on it.
Abortion illegal in your E.D.-? No problem! Just walk across the street! (Or a short drive in ore rural areas).
No. If it’s not in the state constitution, then the state legislature can either enact a law that either prohibits or permits abortion as it sees fit. The only thing left for the state court to do is comply with the law.
Yet it wasn't one Judge was it? Since you need that predicate for your posit, your posit is irreparably flawed.
“One judge” was simply illustrative of the point. Whether it’s one or a group, the point is the same. What one judge or group can do, one or a group can undo.
See that's why we have a system of District courts. Multiple Judges, then appeal to a panel of all the Judges in the District then an appeal to a Court of appeals Judge then to the full panel THEN to the SCOTUS.
That's a BIG fucking group of Judges to get through to undo a 40+ year old precedent.
I was referring to the Supreme Court. If I get 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices, it’s game over no matter what any other judge below thought or thinks. As for getting to the SCOTUS, I only need one federal District Court judge to render a decision. The losing side will appeal to the court of appeals for that circuit to get one decision. Then the losing side will appeal to the SCOTUS. In total, three layers.
Nope. The SCOTUS doesn't take a case on direct appeal very often. They usually take cases where two different Circuit decisions differ. That alone could be 8 layers.
It’s still just three layers for me. And, as happened in the Muslim ban case, there was no conflict between circuits. My point isn’t about layers anyway. It’s that, if the Supreme Court can make law from the bench, then 5 justices can undo it at some point in the future, no matter how it gets before the court.
You are not a STATE, as with the Muslim ban case. BTW, interesting that you admit that it's a Muslim ban. Wonder how the SCOTUS missed that FACT...
I never said I was a “STATE” and I used the term “Muslim ban” solely for ease of reference. As the majority noted, the ban doesn’t mention religion at all nor can it be a de facto Muslim ban since the overwhelming number of Muslims aren’t affected at all.
You said "As in the Muslim ban case" and that case was brought by STATES. It's a false equivalency.
So claims Trump.
Yes, I know the pretzel that the Majority twisted themselves into to rule for Trump. It's interesting however that in the Masterpiece case, they insisted that what a State Commissioner SAID violated Phillips civil rights but what Trump SAID for over a year isn't relevant. There isn't enough mustard on the planet for that pretzel.
Hawaii is a party in the case and it’s a State.
I’m not Trump and I speak for myself.
The ban doesn’t mention “Muslim” or any religion at all. The twist would only occur if you read into the proclamation something it doesn’t actually include.
That’s not the same as the baker case. The problem in that case was that the commission inexplicably treated the baker differently from other similar cases AND expressed an animus against his beliefs by essentially judging them unworthy of real consideration even though he’s invoking a constitutional right. To treat similarly situated parties differently with no explanation for it OTHER than an animus against his religious beliefs led the court to decide overwhelmingly against the commission in a 7 to 2 vote. In the Muslim case, the proclamation clearly had a legitimate rational basis apart from any religious statement Trump made. To me, these cases are completely consistent.
Again, YOU are not a State and therefore cannot 'skip' steps. A State has AUTOMATIC standing with the Federal court. Sheesh.
Amazes me some people seem to want a constitutionalist non partisan judge when it's something they support.
Alrgough I think we can make some of the same arguments that the constitution is old and the forefathers couldn't have predicted abortion would be as widespread as it is... so therefore they wouldn't have meant for abortion to be covered under privacy. If they did they would have specifically said so!
side note: no I'm not against abortion generally. Just making a comparison argument
The only ruling by them that I can think of, that I would want over turned, would be Citizens United (which over turned an existing ruling).
Amazingly the one ruling i think most people agree on that will never be changed :/
Never be changed? I'd hedge my bet on that.
I'd like to see it happen.... I don't think it will though. It makes too many politicians rich. Dem controlled govt... it doesn't go away... Repub controlled... it doesn't go away.
is going to be one of those issues where both sides act like they "would" pass reform if it wasn't for the "other side"
politicians cant be trusted especially when they are in the game for so long. IE Maxine waters could be trusted at her word at one point... now she just wants to get richer. Same with Bernie, same with new NY senator and same with trump eventually. Govt positions should not be a way to enrich yourself
Are you by any chance aware of the fact that our Founding Father (Peace Be Upon Them!) were aware of the fact that times change-- and some of these changes they knew they coun;dn't predict!!!
So they provided for thrt by writing in a process for Amending it?
(IIRC, the U.S. Constitution has been amended close to 30 time!!! ...???)
Exactly! If you want a right to abortion, amend the Constitution to create one. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Hmm. Initial response is gone. I may have changed pages before it sent. I'll repeat it
i am very greatful the founding fathers had the foresight to include a way to amend the constitution....
that was the route they intended to alter it. What they didn't mean for to happen was for people to misconstrue their words.... such as "well regulated militia.. shall not be infringed"
ita very clear with context that the founding fathers intended for the average citizen to be armed if they so choose. They had cannons citizens could own... they wouldn't have an issue with semi auto rifles for example. Yet well regulated has been taken out of context. In the corresponding time well regulated just meant in working order... not regulated with laws.
as you said though... they left the tools in place to amend the constitution... and republicans very well could have the numbers to call for a constitutional convention after November. They could very well ban abortion outright. Which would be perfectly legal on their part... and if people didn't abide by it they would go to jail
An amendment isn't necessary. Laws prohibiting abortion were deemed unconstitutional and struck down. Therefore, abortion is legal as well as an implied right under the Constitution.
Well, an implied right, whatever that is, can always be reversed, since there is no textual basis in the Constitution for it. If, in fact. rights can created out of thin air, than they can taken away just as easily, since under that Philosophy the Constitution can magically evolve on a whim. Be careful, you might wake up tomorrow and find out the Constitution "evolved" and Southern Baptism is now the official state religion.
There's a reason the 19th Amendment was passed, and the right for women to vote wasn't magically found lurking in an emanation of a penumbra of the 14th Amendment that specially trained judges can find when they look at Constitution upside down at the solstice. As the people of 1920 understood, the equal protection clause clearly allows the States to keep women from voting, and since they wanted to make it unconstitutional to deny the vote to women, they knew they better amend the Constitution to protect their right. They did and since it was done properly, there's been no serious attempt to take the vote from women since.
The Constitution is a legal document, a contact between the people and the Government, and should be interpreted as such, not as a blank slate for judges to project their own wishes upon.
That is what I would say they did with roe. It was a legal decision.
A legal decision based on what.? A judge’s job is to reconcile the text of a contract, not rewrite it to fit his or her preferred outcome. Contracts don’t evolve in any legal system I’m aware of. It can’t be hard to see how chaos results when a contracts terms change based on who is reading it.
It was a legal decision based on a dispute between two beliefs. The justices decided that the freedom to choose trumped force or coercion.
People say they want to rely on a strict constitutional law yet if that were they case, we would hardly have any laws.
Precedent is made when there is a decision between two factions.
Sure, you can espouse all the pablum that all you want. , but that's not what judges do. That's certainly not what Blackmun wrote.
they want to rely on a strict constitutional law yet if that were they case, we would hardly have any laws.
This is wrong on so many levels. For starters, in your opinion, you believe we hardly had any laws before say, 1950?
I think you've negated your own point.
Not likely. Never in the entire history of the court has a right been revoked once granted or recognized.
The Constitution is the basis of our laws and it's the courts responsibility to interpret it when legal issues arise.
Based on the interpretation of the constitution to determine the constitutionality of certain laws.
Sure it has, the "right to contract" another bogus interpretation of the 14th Amendment, was struck down after being created by the Court in Lochner. Moreover, falling for recency bias is the true definition of insanity. When an event is plainly possible, it's crazy to claim it won't ever happen just because it hasn't happened in over a short time frame. Things that haven't happened before happen all the time.
nstitution is the basis of our laws and it's the courts responsibility to interpret it when legal issues arise.
It's the Court's responsibility to apply the Constitution when it speaks on an issue, when the Constitution is silent, the Court's duty is to practice judicial restraint and allow the other branches to exercise their powers when it doesn't.
the interpretation of the constitution to determine the constitutionality of certain law
Calling a cockroach a butterfly doesn't make it one. "Interpretation" in a case like Roe, simply means making things up and applying a policy preference. There's no textual basis to support a right to abortion, the Constitution is self evidently silent on the question. Everything else is sophistry.
Again, if you can "interpret" a clause allowing the state to take a citizen's life to mean "there's a right to abortion" then you can interpret any clause in the document to mean anything. 5 judges can "interpret" the first Amendment to require you to tithe your income directly to the Baptist church.
The problem with trying to get into the heads of the founders on the issue of abortion is that they were misogynistic elitists. They didn't believe that women were worthy of having autonomy over their own material property much less having autonomy over their own bodies.
The founders could not have envisioned the changes that 14th and 19th Amendments would make in our society yet they were much needed changes.
Not to mention , in the Founders time, women couldn't vote or own property. They were essentially second class citizens.
So because they were wrong on one part that leaves it all up to interpretation?
Aptgough inbelieve it is too late.. we have given up so many rights we have strayed from true freedom.
its license and not liberty now. I don't know if It is ironic "license not liberty" started as a anti open constitution rally cry...
but we have lost the US as a true freedom state.
we have given up freedoms fornsafety, comfort, and convenience.... and we deserve none of them now.
We willfully give up basic rights. People can't plant a flag or paint their house without approval from a HOA now. That isn't freedom. Anarchy is the only hope we have now
Well first of all the 14th and 19th address 2 different points.
Which ones?
As long as lawyers charge fees there can be NO equal justice.
Yep, corporations are people, retroactive immunities for corporations, indefinite detention of citizens, bill passed to protect only one person, bills passed to attack only one company. It's been a slide for decades.
Which freedoms do you truly have anymore? Everything has to be approved by the govt.
Almosy everything has a govt stipulation attatched.
it seems silly... but if you wanted to make moon shine for example. That's a no
freedom of speech? When and where they approve it
Someone dig a pond on their property... govt fined them and forced them to fill it back in.
just little things that the govt has way too much say in imo.
Then the things the govt doesn't have a say in it seems we are content to help strip. Say or do something someone doesn't like? We are going to try and get you fired and silenced.
Then join an HOA that tells me what color my house can be or how high my grass can be... stripping freedoms for profit or comfort. So much so that we may as well be cattle being corralled into our pens on the approved paths ... a little freedom as long as you stay in the boundaries of your pen.
The only right left in the Bill of Rights is the 3rd Amendment but give it time.
Collins played her 'Stepford' role for too long. In the new TGOP, her usefulness is greatly diminished. She knows this. Why she stays in the senate is a legitimate question.
True.
But more and more folks are becoming aware of her duplicity-- and many are mentioning it.
Often in creative and unique ways.
For example, recently they created this:
People Are Sending Wire Hangers To A Senator Who They Think Is Too Soft On Protecting Abortion Rights
How much 'people' become aware is one thing. Their votes is quite another thing.
Whatever happens, Trump's gonna win on this...
Many Democrats keep believing that they will come up with some magickal way to stop Trump. Or they hope Collins or Murkowski will flip.
But even in the unlikely event those two Republicans do flip-- there are at least three Democratic senators from conservative states that will vote with the Republicans (for fear that if they don't vote to confirm Trump's choice, they'd be voted out of office..and they are correct).
(Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D. is one that comes to mind-- there are at least two others Democratic Senators from conservative states that will vote for a Trump nominee... IMO eventually we will see Trump's Supreme Court selections repeal Row v Wade.