February, 07 2019, 11:00pm EDT

Susan Collins Intentionally Misled the Public about Kavanaugh: She Must be Held Accountable for Kavanaugh's War on Roe
Throughout Brett Kavanaugh's nomination process, Senator Susan Collins intentionally misled the public by saying that Kavanaugh did not pose a threat to Roe v. Wade's protections for women and families. Yet, Kavanaugh's dissent, in one of his first abortion cases, the recent June Medical Services v.
WASHINGTON
Throughout Brett Kavanaugh's nomination process, Senator Susan Collins intentionally misled the public by saying that Kavanaugh did not pose a threat to Roe v. Wade's protections for women and families. Yet, Kavanaugh's dissent, in one of his first abortion cases, the recent June Medical Services v. Gee makes clear his intent to wage war on Roe.
It only took Kavanaugh four months into his lifetime appointment on the bench to prove that Susan Collins' insistence that he would respect precedent was a complete lie. And now, she must own that, and answer to the millions of people in this country (and the vast majority who support Roe) who thought they could count on her to keep her word on her commitment to preserving Roe.
Collins' misinformation campaign continued as recently as two months ago when she said that she felt "vindicated" when Kavanaugh voted against having the Supreme Court hear a case involving Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that the case did not actually address access to abortion care.
Susan Collins claims to support women and our fundamental freedoms but her defense of Kavanaugh in the examples below show that she intentionally covered up the fact that he is partisan justice who is willing to overturn precedent to achieve a final goal of criminalizing abortion and punishing women.
Before Kavanaugh Was Nominated, Collins Said On ABC News That She Would Not Vote For Any Nominee Who Would Overturn Roe v. Wade.
"I'm going to have an in depth discussion with the nominee and I believe very much that Roe v. Wade is settled law, as it has been described by Chief Justice Roberts. It has been established as a constitutional right for 46 year -- 45 years, and was reaffirmed 26 years ago.
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.
And that would indicate to me a failure to respect precedent of fundamental tenet of our judicial system."
[ABC News, 7/1/18]
Collins Said That She Would Not Support A Nominee Who Had Demonstrated Hostility Toward Roe
"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,' Collins said in an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday."
[Vox, 7/1/18]
Following her in-person meeting with Judge Kavanaugh, Senator Collins released this statement:
"In a more than two-hour meeting in my office today, Judge Kavanaugh and I had a productive, informative discussion about a wide range of issues, including: his judicial philosophy, his respect for precedent, and the importance of an independent judiciary. We also discussed Roe v. Wade... I also was pleased to learn that Judge Kavanaugh believes, as I do, that Article III of the Constitution was intended to include the concept of precedent and that he sees precedent as much more than simply a matter of practice and tradition. In addition, he expressed agreement with Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation hearing statement that Roe is settled precedent and entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis."
[Quorum, 9/21/18]
Announcing her decision to support Kavanaugh in a public address, Collins argued that he stood out from past nominees as the "first nominee" ever to express such reverence for precedent, going so far as to label it a "constitutional tenet."
Collins went on to attack Kavanaugh's critics and suggest that he will "work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5 to 4 decisions." From a full transcript of her October 5th statement:
To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article 3 of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent isn't a goal or an aspiration. It is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
[...]
Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.
[...]
Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, describing it as a precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said "no."
[...]
Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5 to 4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored."
[Vox, 10/5/18]
For over 50 years, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levels—including access to abortion care, birth control, pregnancy and post-partum care, and paid family leave—for everybody. Reproductive Freedom for All is powered by its more than 4 million members from every state and congressional district in the country, representing the 8 in 10 Americans who support legal abortion.
202.973.3000LATEST NEWS
'This Is Corruption': Trump Bought Stock in Taser Maker Just Before ICE Contract Notice
"There's a reason why Trump fired the ethics watchdog who oversaw corruption and conflicts of interest in the executive branch," said one critic.
Jun 29, 2026
US President Donald Trump bought up to $5 million worth of stock in the corporation that makes Taser electroshock guns, police body cameras, and policing software two weeks before his administration announced the solicitation of a $220 million contract apparently tailored to the company's product and services, CNBC revealed Monday.
CNBC's Luke Falcon reported that Trump disclosed the purchase of between $1-5 million in Axon Enterprise stock on February 10. Two weeks later, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced it was seeking a five-year, $220 million deal for 17,800 conductive energy weapons, unlimited cartridges, and support services.
Axon Enterprise stock skyrocketed over 22% immediately following ICE's announcement, although they're down more than 25% this year.
According to Falcon:
If finalized, the purchase would more than quadruple ICE’s current Taser arsenal, replacing about 4,300 devices in the field, according to the February notice.
The notice refers to an upgrade to the “T10,” Axon’s “Taser 10" model, to replace ICE’s older “X26P/X2 Tasers,” which are also Axon-made. It also specifies features associated with Taser 10, including a 45-foot range and 10 individually targeted probes—all specifications and capabilities that procurement experts say effectively foreclose other bidders.
"The concern is that [Trump] bought into a company whose business could grow if his own administration expands immigration enforcement," Jordan Libowitz, vice president for communications at the liberal-leaning watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNBC.
Deborah Fleischaker—a former acting ICE chief of staff during the Biden administration who is now a senior immigration policy adviser at the Latino advocacy group UnidosUS—told Falcon that the timing of Trump's purchase "raises red flags."
“It is not smart to buy stock in a company that was impacted by the decisions you would be making at the agency,” she said. “I would have stayed far, far away from actual impropriety, or the appearance of impropriety.”
The ICE contract notice came as the agency and other Department of Homeland Security divisions were set to reap tens of billions of dollars in new funding thanks to Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly insisted that "there are no conflicts of interest" and that Trump's investments are managed by independent third parties.
"But the sequence raises a public integrity question: A president with a newly disclosed financial interest in a law enforcement technology company led an administration expanding immigration enforcement when one of its agencies sought a major purchase of products closely associated with that company," The Intellectualist contended on Monday.
Campaign for New York Health executive director Melanie D'Arrigo said on social media Monday: "Trump bought up to $5 million in stock of a company seeking an ICE contract that specifies products unique to that company. This is corruption. There's a reason why Trump fired the ethics watchdog who oversaw corruption and conflicts of interest in the executive branch."
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee and several watchdog groups have published running lists of dozens of instances of alleged and proven conflicts of interest and other corruption that have enriched Trump and his family by billions of dollars during his second term in office alone.
On Sunday, The New York Times reported that Trump and US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick reached a billion-dollar agreement with Kazakhstan to develop of one of the world's largest untapped deposits of tungsten, a key metal used to make missile warheads, fighter jets, computer chips, and other products.
According to the Times, within weeks of the deal taking shape, investors associated with Dominari Securities—a firm partly owned by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, the president's sons—acquired a 20% stake in an entity connected to the Kazakhstan tungsten project. Lutnick's sons also reportedly raised capital for one of the project's investors, a role for which they stand to make millions of dollars.
"The corruption is breathtaking," former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich said Monday on social media in response to the Times report.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Proving He 'Does Not Care About Your Cost of Living,' Trump Calls Housing Bill 'Big Yawn'
"A yawn? Try telling that to the families who can't afford rent, can't afford to buy gas or groceries, and are one paycheck away from losing everything."
Jun 29, 2026
Democrats in the US House of Representatives quickly fired back on Monday after President Donald Trump called pending affordable housing legislation a "big yawn" compared to the attack on voting rights that he wants Republicans to pass.
Trump last Wednesday canceled a planned signing ceremony for the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act and demanded that Congress, which is narrowly controlled by Republicans, pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America, Act.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Monday sent Trump the bipartisan housing bill—which will become law with no action by the president after 10 days.
Asked by reporters whether he'll sign the housing legislation, Trump replied: "It hasn't been sent to me yet. It's coming, I understand, and then I'll make a de—Here's what I would like to say... It's a yawn. Some people say it's wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn."
Sharing a clip of the president's remarks on social media, House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) declared, "He truly doesn't give a damn about you."
Other Democrats delivered similar responses. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) said that "Trump does not care about lowering housing prices," while Rep. Becca Balint (Vt.) wrote of his comments, "Donald Trump literally does not care about your cost of living, part one million."
Democratic Colorado Congresswoman Brittany Pettersen said: "A yawn? Try telling that to the families who can't afford rent, can't afford to buy gas or groceries, and are one paycheck away from losing everything. Believe him when he tells you who he is."
Rep. Christian D. Menefee, a Texas Democrat, charged that "Trump cares more about rigging elections than Americans affording homes."
The Democratic National Committee's (DNC) rapid response director, Kendall Witmer, said in a statement that "Donald Trump continues to mock what everyday Americans are experiencing. Time and again, Trump has had the chance to lower costs for working families, but without fail, he has chosen to prioritize his own interests and those of his wealthy friends."
"As Americans struggle to put a roof over their heads and afford basic necessities," Witmer added, "Trump continues to double down on his disastrous policies and self-serving agenda—and Americans are fed up."
Trump's comments came just over four months away from the November midterm elections, in which Democrats aim to regain control of both chambers of Congress.
In the lead-up to the midterms, Trump has ramped up pressure on Republicans in Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would force Americans to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote, and photo identification at the ballot box. Critics have warned that the former requirement could disenfranchise millions of Americans who may not have access to documents such as a birth certificate or passport with their current name.
Johnson said Sunday on Fox News that "we're going to try to pass it again, and this time we’re going to try to put it on a reconciliation bill," which "prevents the necessity of 60 votes in the Senate."
The speaker on Monday also sent a message to his GOP colleagues who might block unrelated legislation in a bid to pressure senators to pass the SAVE America Act: "Whomever is thinking that stopping the work of House Republicans to make Americans safer right now and to bring down the cost of living—impeding that progress just because stubborn Senate Democrats won't do the job of the American people is self-defeating. It doesn't make any sense."
Punchbowl reported on Monday that GOP leadership has also expressed interest in creating a $4 billion grant program that would incentivize states to enact parts of the bill. Some Republican state lawmakers have already pursued copycat legislation.
As elected Republicans attack voting rights at the national level, the US Supreme Court—whose right-wing supermajority has often rubber-stamped Trump's agenda—delivered a surprise victory for voting rights on Monday: Two conservatives joined the three liberal justices in rejecting the Republican National Committee's (RNC) challenge to states counting mailed ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received afterward.
"The DNC is proud to have stood with the state of Mississippi to defeat the RNC's latest attack on Americans’ voting rights," said the Democrats' chair, Ken Martin. "Trump and Republicans are attacking our elections and trying to rig the system in their favor because they know the American people are ready to reject their chaos and corruption this November."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Hatches Scheme to Evade Filibuster and Pass Trump's Assault on Voting Rights
House Speaker Mike Johnson said that “this time we’re going to try to put it on a reconciliation bill,” which “prevents the necessity of 60 votes in the Senate.”
Jun 29, 2026
With Senate Republicans appearing unwilling to nuke the filibuster to pass President Donald Trump's SAVE America Act, House Republican leaders are trying a new tactic to pressure states to enact the bill's severe voting rights restrictions without actually passing the bill itself.
The SAVE America Act has already passed the House multiple times. Trump has tried to hold a bipartisan housing bill hostage in order to pressure Senate Republicans to pass the bill without support from Democrats, but failed to get enough GOP senators on board.
On Sunday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told Fox Business that "we're going to try to pass it again, and this time we're going to try to put it on a reconciliation bill," which "prevents the necessity of 60 votes in the Senate."
Punchbowl reported on Monday that GOP leadership had expressed interest in creating a $4 billion grant program in order to incentivize states to enact parts of the bill, including requirements that voters re-register to vote with documents proving their citizenship and provide voter ID at the polls while outlawing mail-in ballots in most cases.
Johnson's plan is an alternative to the approach taken by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), and a group of other staunch Trump allies, who have threatened to torpedo the National Defense Authorization Act unless the full SAVE America Act is attached in a bid to force the Senate to pass it.
Luna has said that if her amendments are ruled out of order, she and her far-right colleagues will vote against procedural rules on other House bills to essentially grind the chamber to a halt.
Trump and other supporters of the legislation have said these measures are necessary to prevent noncitizens from voting, which is already illegal.
Even data from the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has authored much of Trump's second-term agenda, shows that noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare: It has identified just 77 instances of noncitizen voting between 1999 and 2023.
Federal law already requires that voters provide their driver's license or the last four digits of their Social Security number when registering to vote, which allows election officials to verify their citizenship status.
But Republicans are hoping to replace this system with one that is far more burdensome, requiring voters to provide original copies of personal documents to prove their citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate matching their legal name, and to present them in person at an election office, effectively banning online registration.
Critics have warned that millions of eligible voters could face cost burdens when attempting to exercise their right to vote as a result, as a passport costs $165 to acquire and tens of millions of Americans do not have access to the original copy of their birth certificate.
Many voters, especially in rural areas, also live several hours away from their election office, and around 69 million married women have different legal names than the ones on their birth certificates.
Only two states, Georgia and Arizona, have historically enforced laws requiring voters to prove their citizenship with documents. But according to the Center for American Progress, 12 more have enacted provisions similar to those in the SAVE America Act since 2024, though many cannot be applied to federal elections and some have been blocked by courts.
New Hampshire, Wyoming, South Dakota, Ohio, Utah, Louisiana, and Florida have enacted laws requiring voters to prove their citizenship using physical documentation. Kansas, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Indiana have enacted laws that can require certain voters flagged as potential noncitizens to present proof.
Following a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on Monday in which two conservative justices joined the three liberals to rule that states can count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day as long as they are postmarked before, Trump put more pressure on Republican holdouts in the Senate.
"All Dumocrats, and our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY," he wrote on Truth Social.
Cassidy (R-La.) wrote in response, "Mr. President, I don’t know which version of the SAVE America Act you’re referring to, but I am a cosponsor and support the latest version. I don’t know which staffer misled you, but thank you for your attention to this matter!!"
"Btw, it’s irresponsible to postpone signing the Housing bill due to the SAVE Act. We need to start delivering relief to people for the high cost of housing ASAP!!" the senator added.
In the Oval Office, Trump told reporters that all other bills, including the housing bill and the defense spending bill, were "a big yawn" in comparison to the SAVE America Act.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that "as the midterm elections approach, Trump and his allies are working overtime to silence Americans’ votes" and vowed that "Senate Democrats will continue to do everything we can to protect free and fair elections, where everyone’s voice is heard.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


