AOC Shreds Sens. Collins and Murkowski For Betraying ‘the Nation’s Reproductive Rights’: ‘They Don’t Get to Play Victim Now’

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  49 comments

AOC Shreds Sens. Collins and Murkowski For Betraying ‘the Nation’s Reproductive Rights’: ‘They Don’t Get to Play Victim Now’
Critics roasted Collins online and resurfaced old interviews of Collins saying Kavanaugh “won’t vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.” Seems like the only person who didn’t realize what a fool Susan Collins was… was Susan Collins. 

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T






Screen-Shot-2022-02-14-at-11.35.15-AM.jpg

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images


Rep.   Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez   (D-NY) lit into Republican Sens.   Susan Collins   (R-ME) and   Lisa Murkowski   (R-AK) on Tuesday in light of the leaked draft decision from the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Ocasio-Cortez responded to comments from Murkowski saying, “My confidence in the court has been rocked.” Murkowski was asked by journalists if she felt Trump’s Supreme Court nominees had misled her during the confirmation process by saying they would uphold court precedents.

“If the decision is going the way that the draft that has been revealed is actually the case, it was not—it was not the direction that I believed that the court would take based on statements that have been made about Roe being settled and being precedent,” Murkowski added, as reported by NBC News’s   Frank Thorp.


More MURKOWSKI: “If the decision is going the way that the draft that has been revealed is actually the case, it was not—it was not the direction that I believed that the court would take based on statements that have been made about Roe being settled and being precedent.”
— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp)   May 3, 2022

Ocasio-Cortez slammed Murkowski’s comments, saying:


Murkowski voted for Amy Coney Barrett when Trump himself proclaimed that he was appointing justices specifically to overturn Roe.
She and Collins betrayed the nation’s reproductive rights when they were singularly capable of stopping the slide. They don’t get to play victim now


Murkowski voted for Amy Coney Barrett when Trump himself proclaimed that he was appointing justices specifically to overturn Roe.

She and Collins betrayed the nation’s reproductive rights when they were singularly capable of stopping the slide. They don’t get to play victim now   https://t.co/6i7b3g08lN

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC)   May 3, 2022

Ocasio-Cortez referenced Sen. Collins as she made a statement similar to Murkowski earlier on Tuesday as well.

Collins told reporters, “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”


Susan Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”
— Manu Raju (@mkraju)   May 3, 2022

Critics roasted Collins online and resurfaced old interviews of Collins saying Kavanaugh “won’t vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.” The draft decision, written by Justice   Samuel Alito,   reportedly had the support of Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, but Supreme Court Chief Justice   John Roberts   noted   on Tuesday that while the draft is “authentic” … “it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”


Seems like the only person who didn’t realize what a fool Susan Collins was… was Susan Collins.   pic.twitter.com/FFaVMpkU6W
— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen)   May 3, 2022


BREAKING: Chief Justice John Roberts has directed the marshal of the Supreme Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, which Roberts verified as an authentic document   pic.twitter.com/vcq4lTY7bk
— John Kruzel (@johnkruzel)   May 3, 2022



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago
"Seems like the only person who didn’t realize what a fool Susan Collins was… was Susan Collins. "

Seriously, is anyone surprised? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago
Seriously, is anyone surprised? 

Well, I AM surprised.

I am surprised AOC is utilizing a service owned by a rich (extremely) white African immigrant to espouse her views on!

Maybe the liberals will soon stop using Twitter.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    3 weeks ago

Why are you afraid of the topic of the seed? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
Why are you afraid of the topic of the seed? 

Afraid?

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago
Seriously, is anyone surprised? 

Exactly, what do you expect from Maine voters over the last 25 years?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago
Seriously, is anyone surprised? 

Surprised about the degree of raving liberal hysteria over something that hasn't actually happened?

No.  Sadly.  Not at all surprised.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.3.1  Snuffy  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3    3 weeks ago

Does anybody know the timing between when Politico released the article and when the DNC sent out the first fund raiser using this as the topic?  I would imagine the timing on the two was rather tight.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3    3 weeks ago
Surprised about the degree of raving liberal hysteria over something that hasn't actually happened? No.  Sadly.  Not at all surprised.

I'm surprised that you think nothing has happened. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.3.3  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.2    3 weeks ago

Really JR, what has happened so far with this?  So far all that has happened that I can see is that Politico has released a very early draft of an opinion written by one Justice.  This very early draft is for internal discussion within SCOTUS.  It is not the official opinion, that has not yet been released and nobody outside of SCOTUS has any clue as to where this sits at this point.  So all we have is the hysteria being thrown about and the fear being pushed over something that has not yet come to pass.

By all means, really and let your voices be heard.  But fear over this?  When even if this is the opinion that gets passed abortion is not illegal in the United States.  You really want to do something positive about this, start to work with your Congressmen and Senators to see about getting a law passed that would codify this.  Maybe try something constructive ...   Seems a better use of time than crying at the sky over something that may or may not come to pass.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.3.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3    3 weeks ago
Surprised about the degree of raving liberal hysteria over something that hasn't actually happened?

If this had been a leaked draft from a majority liberal court saying based on the constitution Churches should no longer have tax exempt status, do you think we might hear quite an uproar from religious conservatives even if it hadn't been officially enacted?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.4    3 weeks ago
If this had been a leaked draft from a majority liberal court saying based on the constitution Churches should no longer have tax exempt status, do you think we might hear quite an uproar from religious conservatives even if it hadn't been officially enacted?

I dare say that we would hear plenty from one of the largest Democratic blocs if we start taxing churches.

Might be interesting to see a legal theory as to why the government can't make churches tax-free. For the life of me, I can find nothing in the Constitution saying Congress can't do it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.3.6  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.2    3 weeks ago
I'm surprised that you think nothing has happened. 

No decision has been made.  R v W has not been overturned.  

What exactly do you imagine has happened?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.3.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.4    3 weeks ago
If this had been a leaked draft from a majority liberal court saying based on the constitution Churches should no longer have tax exempt status, do you think we might hear quite an uproar from religious conservatives even if it hadn't been officially enacted?

Most probably.

But at some point between the ages of 7 and 10 we were supposed to have learned that one person's stupidity does not legitimize another's.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
1.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

Not really. I have seen enough confirmation hearings to know the nominees all dance around without actually answering a question that would close the door to anything in the future. The Senate have devolved into a bunch of fools that are more interested in hearing themselves talk and getting a sound bite for cable news than looking at the qualifications.  As far as I am concerned a sitting president can nominate whoever he wants and as long as the person is qualified they should be confirmed. how they would rule on an issue should not be considered. It was not that long ago when justices were confirmed in a bipartisan way. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

Certainly not the first time SCOTUS has voted to overturn precedent. Won't be the last time, either.

AOC blaming two women Senators for a SCOTUS decision is amusing. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2    3 weeks ago

You dont seem to understand what she is blaming them for. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 weeks ago

I'll take Senate confirmation record for $1,000

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 weeks ago
You dont seem to understand what she is blaming them for.

Well, gee, isn't that something!

Who'd have guessed that me and AOC would actually have something in common!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3  Jack_TX    3 weeks ago

Odd... because AOC plays the victim whenever she wants.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @3    3 weeks ago
Odd... because AOC plays the victim whenever she wants.

Yeah, her life has been extremely rough. Imagine having to find a place to live on your own, and having to pay rent! Imagine having to pay back student loans you borrowed!

I guess it can't all be photo ops on border parking lots.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
3.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    3 weeks ago

I understand Joe may put an earning limit on student loan forgiveness and she will end up having to pay hers back. Poor little AOC.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Any of you "conservatives" going to bother to address the issue? 

Lisa Murkowski said today that this leaked decision to overturn Roe has shaken her faith in the court. Why would that be? Because she believed Kavanaugh when he said that he would not overturn Roe because it was settled law. Now she looks like a sucker. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago
Lisa Murkowski said today that this leaked decision to overturn Roe has shaken her faith in the court.

Oh, maybe she didn't have much faith to begin with.

Because she believed Kavanaugh when he said that he would not overturn Roe because it was settled law.

Can you quote him saying that?

"Settled law" has been overturned before, please don't act like this has never happened before. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
4.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago
Any of you "conservatives" going to bother to address the issue?

I doubt that I qualify as a conservative but I'll try to answer you anyhow.  I assume that Murkowski sees government leaks as improper as do I.  WRT to Kavanaugh, I remember his responses to Feinstein questions on abortions as settled law as as:

Kavanaugh believed it was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and should be “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis,” the notion that precedents should not be overturned without strong reason.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago
would that be? Because she believed Kavanaugh when he said that he would not overturn Roe because it was settled law

She voted against Kavanaugh, who never said that. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3    3 weeks ago

You're right, it wasnt Kavanaugh. The idea is the same though.

She looks like a fool today thanks to her faith in right wing politicians and judges. 

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said on Tuesday that her "confidence" in the Supreme Court has been rocked after a leaked draft opinion suggests that   the constitutional right to abortion would be overturned  by conservative justices on the court — two of whom she voted to approve.

Murkowski, who is among the few Senate Republicans who support abortion rights, made the comments to reporters on Capitol Hill in the wake of the bombshell news of the draft opinion that shows the   court is ready to overturn   the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

The decision — if finalized — would throw out the constitutional right to an abortion.

GOP Sen. Murkowski says her 'confidence' in Supreme Court has been 'rocked' after justices she voted for appear set to overturn Roe v. Wade (msn.com)
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.1    3 weeks ago

I guess Sen. Murkowski should start learning to live with her disappointment.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
4.3.3  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.1    3 weeks ago
Murkowski, who is among the few Senate Republicans who support abortion rights,

I said it elsewhere.  I think there may be enough Republicans in the Senate to pass a law that would codify Roe v Wade now.  This is an election year and this is a issue that the majority of people in the US support.  Not every Republican would support it, and who knows, there may be a few Democrats who cannot vote for it in an election year either.  But it's possible that it could be passed.  That would resolve the issue and I believe Congress is the correct place for this.  I really don't want to see us go back to the 60's where you had to pick and choose where you could get an abortion if you wanted one.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
4.3.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.1    3 weeks ago

Exactly, it's outrageous that SCOTUS nominees can't be held to the views that they took during  confirmation hearings.  It's almost like they want to reflect on the information provided during actual oral arguments when a case comes before the court.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.3.4    3 weeks ago
t's almost like they want to reflect on the information provided during actual oral arguments when a case comes before the court.

Oh, is that because SCOTUS isn't supposed to decide cases they haven't heard yet?

What a novel idea--think it will catch on with Democrats?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.3.4    3 weeks ago

Did the Justices in 1973 "reflect on the information provided during actual oral arguments" ? 

All of these justices have their minds made up before they heard a word. You dont think they have been studying and thinking about this for years?  You actually think one of these opinions was swayed by the "oral arguments" they heard a few months ago? LOL. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.5    3 weeks ago
Oh, is that because SCOTUS isn't supposed to decide cases they haven't heard yet? What a novel idea--think it will catch on with Democrats?

You and drinker of the rye are precious. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.3.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.1    3 weeks ago
GOP Sen. Murkowski says her 'confidence' in Supreme Court has been 'rocked' after justices she voted for appear set to overturn Roe v. Wade

Sounds very Trumpian. She only has confidence in the Court  if it acts like she wants it to. 

Funny how so many "institutionalists" only support the institution when it acts in their interests. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.9  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.7    3 weeks ago

That sounds like a no on whether it catches on with progressive liberals.

That is sad.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.10  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @4.3.3    3 weeks ago

Even if Collins and Murkowski voted with the Democrats, and assuming all the Democrats voted as you suggest, they would still be up against the filibuster. This matter would not fall under the "reconciliation" umbrella, and no bill has ever passed through the Senate by ending the filibuster other than by using the "reconciliation" technique. Manchin and Sinema have already said they wont vote to end a filibuster. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.11  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.7    3 weeks ago
You and drinker of the rye are precious. 

I am sorry, I wasn't made aware when we were made the topic here.

Pray tell when that happened?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.12  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.11    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.13  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.8    3 weeks ago
She only has confidence in the Court  if it acts like she wants it to. 

Obviously she feels betrayed by the justices who she thinks gave assurances at their confirmation hearings that they were not interested in overturning  Roe. 

If that does not satisfy you why dont you send her an email. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
4.3.14  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.10    3 weeks ago
Collins and Murkowski voted with the Democrats,

Maybe only Collins and Murkowski would, maybe not.  But the Democrats won't know if all they do is use the fear of Roe v Wade for their base.  I think there are more Republicans who would support such a law but it would take some courage to go against the Party..  But if the Democrats were to publicly sell it perhaps?  But we may never see it as another political calculation is to not pass it and continue to use it as a club against the other side.  

Imagine where we might be if we could avoid the partisan infighting...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.15  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.10    3 weeks ago
no bill has ever passed through the Senate by ending the filibuster other than by using the "reconciliation" technique.

Hmmmm...I do believe I found one.

PolitiFact | Group of Southern Democrats, not all Democrats, held up 1964 Civil Rights Act

I am betting that there are other bills passed into law without the use of reconciliation despite filibusters.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.4.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @4.4    3 weeks ago

The rest of this useless thread of insults is deleted. It better not happen again. Only warning.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.4.7  bugsy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.4.6    3 weeks ago

Damn...just missed it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5  Tacos!    3 weeks ago
it was not the direction that I believed that the court would take based on statements that have been made about Roe being settled and being precedent,”

This is a silly complaint. Murkowski, as an attorney herself, knows full well that Supreme Court precedent is binding on everyone - except for the Supreme Court. By tradition (and nothing else), the Court does rely on its own holdings, but only until such time as it changes its collective mind and decides to overturn that previous holding.

When Senators quiz nominees to the Court about stare decisis - flogging the topic relentlessly - they are really playing at getting a promise not to overturn Roe v Wade, without coming out and admitting that’s what they are doing.

But it’s all a farce. Anyone who claims they are surprised that the Court could overturn Roe - or anything other SCOTUS holding - is either ignorant or a liar.

 
 

Who is online

Jeremy Retired in NC
Texan1211
RU4Real


24 visitors