Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Justice Kavanaugh lie to Senator Susan Collins about overturning Roe?
Hotair ^ | 06/25/2022 | AllahPundit

Posted on 06/25/2022 9:10:23 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Short answer: Of course not. Neither Kavanaugh nor any other justice would pledge privately to rule a particular way in a future case. To do so would be unethical.

…although Kavanaugh did pledge *publicly* to rule a particular way in certain future cases in yesterday’s Dobbs concurrence.

Longer answer: If this NYT story is accurate, he strongly implied to Collins that he wouldn’t dump Roe. “Lie” is too strong a word, but you can understand why she feels misled.

Jazz has a post coming up about the political predicament in which Collins now finds herself. She’s one of two pro-choice Republicans left in the Senate but she voted to confirm Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch despite the likelihood that each would vote to overturn Roe. When the left challenged her on those votes, Collins answered that she was confident they would uphold precedent, citing statements they made publicly and privately. You’re either a liar or a sucker, the left replied.

After yesterday’s ruling, she’s now forced to explain whether she’s a liar or a sucker.

“She’s a sucker, not a liar,” her staff is suggesting this morning, leaking notes of her private meeting with Kavanaugh before he was confirmed in 2018 to prove that she was deceived.

During a two-hour meeting in her Senate office with the Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh on Aug. 21, 2018, Senator Susan Collins of Maine pressed him hard on why she should trust him not to overturn Roe v. Wade if she backed his confirmation…

“Start with my record, my respect for precedent, my belief that it is rooted in the Constitution, and my commitment and its importance to the rule of law,” he said, according to contemporaneous notes kept by multiple staff members in the meeting. “I understand precedent and I understand the importance of overturning it.”

“Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences,” he continued, according to the notes, adding: “I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine.”

One problem in trusting this account is that it’s self-serving, based on material from Collins’s own office that’s only now being shared when she’s in a tough spot. How much do we trust those notes to reflect accurately what Kavanaugh (and Collins) said at the time?

Specifically, how much do we trust them not to have omitted key bits of what Kavanaugh told her? I can believe that he told her he respects precedent and wouldn’t lightly overturn it. But did he also remind her that certain egregious precedents, like Plessy v. Ferguson, were rightly overturned decades after they were decided because the Court has a duty to correct major injustices? Every judge in America respects precedent broadly speaking, yet every judge in America has specific precedents they’d love to see overruled.

If and when a left-leaning Supreme Court comes for Dobbs, stare decisis won’t give them any pause, I promise.

Having said that, though, if Kavanaugh really did reply to specific questions from Collins about Roe with “I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge,” that’s … pretty misleading. Particularly since the question before the Court yesterday didn’t require them to fully overrule Roe. Kav could have joined Roberts by limiting Roe instead of overturning it, upholding 15-week abortion bans without addressing (yet) whether a total ban on abortion is constitutional.

So maybe Collins isn’t a liar, just a sucker who was lied to. I’ll be curious to see how she votes on the next Republican nominee for the Court down the road.

Speaking of pro-choicers who are disillusioned by an ally’s position on Dobbs, I got a kick out of this Mediaite piece about the left’s Strange New Respect for Liz Cheney fading after she endorsed yesterday’s ruling.

I have always been strongly pro-life. Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court returns power to the states and the people of the states to address the issue of abortion under state law.

— Rep. Liz Cheney (@RepLizCheney) June 24, 2022

Trying to save democracy from Trump and his authoritarian goons just isn’t enough, it appears:

just when i started to admire u …

— ROSIE (@Rosie) June 24, 2022

Liz Cheney wants you to carry your rapists child to term.

Liz Cheney does not care if you were raped by a family member. You will deliver that child.

Your body is not yours.

It belongs to the Republican party.

See your "freedom" and "democracy" hero below. https://t.co/IfFdRDV99A

— Don Winslow (@donwinslow) June 24, 2022

Also… Some of y’all can quit making Liz Cheney your damn freedom fighter right now

https://t.co/KFX15uegvm

— Atima Omara (@atima_omara) June 24, 2022

Heh. It *is* a little surprising that she didn’t bite her lip about the decision, now that she’s aggressively campaigning for Democratic votes back home. Presumably she thought she needed to say something to remind centrist Republicans in Wyoming that she’s still with them on policy to counter the MAGA propaganda that she’s a RINO. She’s trying to walk an electoral tightrope in which speaking out against Trump brings in the lefties and speaking out in support of the conservative agenda brings in the righties, hypothetically forming a winning coalition in her primary.

Although … she’s not quite in lockstep with the conservative agenda in all particulars. Behold the list of House Republicans who voted in favor of the Senate gun bill:

14 YES GOP VOTES:

Liz Cheney
Adam Kinzinger
Tom Rice
John Katko
Maria Salazar
Chris Jacobs
Brian Fitzpatrick
Peter Meijer
Fred Upton
Steve Chabot
Mike Turner
David Joyce
Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio
Tony Gonzalez of Texas

— Daniella Diaz (@DaniellaMicaela) June 24, 2022

I joked about Cheney voting in favor of the bill a few days ago, never believing that she’d do it. She did. Having cover from John Cornyn and 14 other Senate Republicans makes it easier for her to argue to Wyoming Republicans that her vote was well within the conservative mainstream — in theory. In practice, her GOP bona fides are already under such deep suspicion on the right that her gun vote will become just another reason to oust her in her primary.

I’ll leave you with Bill Maher grudgingly tipping his cap to conservatives for never giving up and eventually succeeding on a 50-year mission to remake the Court.

If you're keeping score, it's Guns-1, Women-0.

Welcome to right-wing America, where if you’re going to end a young life, you’re going to have to shoot them.

Watch @BillMaher discuss #RoeVsWade and more in his Real Time monologue: pic.twitter.com/M1tynzRc2S

— Real Time with Bill Maher (@RealTimers) June 25, 2022



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Wyoming
KEYWORDS: 2little2late; abortion; allahpundit; allahspundit; babykillers; bloggers; brettkavanaugh; clarencethomas; createdequal; demagogicparty; kavanaugh; lizcheney; lloydjaustinill; newsforumabuse; nicetry; notnews; scotus; smellahpundit; susancollins; whocares; wyoming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: SeekAndFind
Welcome to right-wing America, where if you're going to end a young life, you're going to have to shoot them.

And go to jail for it.

Anyone who deliberately shoots a baby should go to prison.

You willing to say the same about anyone who deliberately murders a baby by other means Bill?

Will you?

41 posted on 06/25/2022 10:53:45 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (It is better to light a single flame thrower then curse the darkness. A bunch of them is better yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Did Justice Kavanaugh lie to Senator Susan Collins about overturning Roe?

Taqqiya, nukka.

Lying to infidels is a requirement of Allah.

#EatIt


42 posted on 06/25/2022 11:08:37 PM PDT by bagster ("Even bad men love their mamas".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Non-issue.
Does it matter if he did?
Demoncraps never tell the truth, they thrive on lies.


43 posted on 06/25/2022 11:10:18 PM PDT by Bikkuri (I am proud to be a PureBlood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bikkuri

Oh, I place Collins in the [D] category, even if she puts that [R] next to her name.


44 posted on 06/25/2022 11:11:28 PM PDT by Bikkuri (I am proud to be a PureBlood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

ha ha too true. A politician crying foul over being lied to - you gotta love it!


45 posted on 06/25/2022 11:15:11 PM PDT by imabadboy99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

They let in Somalis so they don’t have to listen to the native born.


46 posted on 06/25/2022 11:41:30 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And he should have been honest with congress?

If you are in a war ... and you are the only one playing fair...YOU WILL LOSE


47 posted on 06/26/2022 2:08:49 AM PDT by frnewsjunkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

But at least they are voting for the R who can win there. When R stopped running true constitutional candidates, o wait.


48 posted on 06/26/2022 2:28:13 AM PDT by momincombatboots (Ephesians 6... who you are really at war with. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

These articles and “facts” mean nothing.

The left has decided that the justices lied to them.
There is no way to prove otherwise.

Guilty with no hope of being proven innocent....that is how the left operates.


49 posted on 06/26/2022 2:50:20 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (We are being manipulated by forces that most do not see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

She had no business asking anyone how they would rule on a future case.


50 posted on 06/26/2022 3:35:31 AM PDT by Sacajaweau ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Everyone of the nominees the rats put forward lied


51 posted on 06/26/2022 3:52:46 AM PDT by ronnie raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

They themselves have long chanted and harped about “no litmus test questions.”


52 posted on 06/26/2022 3:54:09 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: matt04
-- Exactly. At the time they didn't have any cases before them on the issue. You can't say how you would rule on a issue until that particular issue is presented to the court and base a decision on what facts and arguments are presented. --

I think there are more factors involved.

One can see the charade by studying Roberts' concurrence, which resembles the Dershowitz whinge. The question of whether or not SCOTUS may properly assign a "right" was not the question. Dershowitz goes so far as to assert that SCOTUS had to wait for a state to ban abortion before it could get to that question.

Lots of ways to frame that point of view. I'll call it process over substance. It's possible to nibble around the real issue indefinitely, by taking things case by case. That's what Roberts would do - usurp power in one big go. Rather than give it up, pretend to give it up by shifting the legal analysis, conceding little pieces here and there, but never letting go of "abortion, via privacy, is a constitutional right therefore you must come to us with the issue every time the issue comes up."

Similar game on RKBA, but in terms of what constitutes and does not constitute infringement. Case law is psychotic on this issue - but SCOTUS just nibbles at the margins.

The other factor involved is the makeup of the court. If the court was majority liberal, or majority conventional (never get to the core issue, always retain power to the court or to the feds), and say flip ACB, then Roberts would have written the majority opinion, and Kavanaugh may have signed on to a dissent by Alito. In that case, Collins wouldn't say ANYTHING about having been lied to or mislead. And justices being people, there is a certain amount of go along to get along involved.

53 posted on 06/26/2022 4:09:07 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Qwapisking

Collins has always been openly pro-abortion.


54 posted on 06/26/2022 4:10:46 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: stanne

The issue is still alive. The legislators control the issue.

It’s obvious that the courts don’t have the power to settle the issue - meaning even if that policy was delegated to the courts, they could not resolve it. Now that the courts have washed hands of it, the legislators can show off how capable they are when they have the power. two campaign issues. One is the issue itself, the other is over whther or not the federal government has any authority here at all.


55 posted on 06/26/2022 4:14:44 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

What are you blabbing about.

The Supreme Court is still looking at it? They’re going to look at an appeal.?

Stop.


56 posted on 06/26/2022 4:26:57 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Did Susan Collins lie to her constituents about how long she would serve as Senator? Why, YES, she did:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4841176/user-clip-susan-collins-term-limits


57 posted on 06/26/2022 4:27:57 AM PDT by Baldwin77 (Super, Duper, Ultra Maga, subject of the Ultra Maga King Donald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Have another cup of coffee and re-read what I wrote.


58 posted on 06/26/2022 4:42:30 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The US government and constitution is out of it now.

Stop wasting my time stop telling me what to do. Stop writing to me


59 posted on 06/26/2022 4:49:26 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In theory, the justices are supposed to decide how to vote after listening to the pleadings, conferencing with each other, and reviewing draft opinions.


60 posted on 06/26/2022 4:54:10 AM PDT by Jim Noble (I’ve stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson