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
Alcatraz Push 'No More Than a Sensational Distraction' From Trump's Attack on Public Safety
Less than two weeks ago, Trump's DOJ slashed nearly $1 billion from existing public safety grants that experts warn will "imperil public safety, not promote it."
May 05, 2025
Add "distraction" to the list of words being used to describe President Donald Trump's "psychotic," "deluded," and "unbefuckinglievable" talk about reopening the island prison of Alcatraz in California's San Francisco Bay.
In a statement to reporters on the White House lawn Sunday night, Trump said the idea for reopening Alcatraz—which he first floated in a social media post—was "just an idea I had" and that the prison was a "symbol of law and order."
But less than two weeks ago, the Trump administration ordered the cancellation of an estimated $811 million in grants for public safety from the Justice Department that experts and advocates say were proving successful at reducing crime and curbing harm in communities nationwide—all with bipartisan support.
"Alcatraz," said civil rights attorney Scott Hechinger in response to Trump's social media post—which sparked no shortage of headlines across the news media—is "no more than a sensational distraction from this: Trump just cut nearly $1 billion from bipartisan, proven, successful anti-crime, violence prevention programs around the country."
The various programs impacted by the grant cuts—including gun violence prevention and law enforcement trainings—said Hechinger, were designed to prevent crime "before people were ever harmed."
Arguing that Trump has made the country less safe, not more, by his policies, Hechinger added, "now he's stomping and parading around with big words and sensational capital letters about a wasteful reopening of a domestic torture complex that will never actually happen and do nothing to keep America safer. All while claiming to care about violence prevention. What a dangerous joke."
Lamenting the public safety grant cuts in a blog post last week, the Brennan Center for Justice's Rosemary Nidiry, senior counsel in the group's justice program, detailed how the grant funding slashed by Trump "filled critical gaps" in the nation's public safety infrastructure.
The grants, she noted, "supported victims of crime, trained law enforcement, offered treatment to people with behavioral health and substance issues, and helped people reintegrate into society after incarceration. They also promoted research used to create and guide effective policies. Many if not all were ended immediately and without warning, in the middle of a typical 3-year grant period, disrupting programs and creating financial strain for nonprofits."
"The slashed programs have been proven to make communities safer," wrote Nidiry, "and their end will in fact imperil public safety, not promote it."
When Alcatraz was closed by the Bureau of Prisons in 1963, the cost of running the crumbling facility was the primary driver of that decision.
As Newsweek reports, "Operating Alcatraz proved to be significantly more expensive than other federal prisons. In 1959, the daily per capita cost at Alcatraz was $10.10, compared with $3.00 at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta, making it nearly three times more costly to operate. This high expense was largely due to the island's isolation, which necessitated that all supplies, including food, water, and fuel, be transported by boat. For instance, nearly one million gallons of fresh water had to be barged to the island each week."
In a letter on Friday, over three dozen Democratic lawmakers called on the Justice Department to reinstate $150 million in grants awarded for gun violence prevention.
"This funding, appropriated by Congress, directly contributes to making communities safer," the lawmakers stated in a letter. "We urge you to honor the grants already awarded and to implement this funding as Congress directed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Mockery' of Humanitarian Law: Israel Wants US Mercenaries for Aid Relief in Gaza
What the Israeli government is planning is "not an aid plan," said one legal scholar, but rather "an aid denial plan."
May 05, 2025
Despite global outcry to end the "genocidal" assault on the people of Gaza, Israeli cabinet ministers early Monday approved a plan that could lead to the capture of the "entire Gaza Strip," prompting fresh warnings of a complete ethnic cleansing of the enclave coupled with outrage over a proposal to use U.S.-based mercenaries to be part of distribution of humanitarian aid.
One Israeli official familiar with the shift in military tactics toldHaaretz that Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear to his Security Cabinet that the new approach in Gaza will be different from what's been going over the previous 18 months in that it will shift from what were described as "raid-based operations" to "the occupation of territory and a sustained Israeli presence in Gaza."
Another unnamed Israeli official told Agence France-Press that the plan "will include, among other things, the conquest of the Gaza Strip and the holding of the territories, moving the Gaza population south for their protection."
"It is dangerous, driving civilians into militarized zones to collect rations, threatening lives, including those of humanitarian workers, while further entrenching forced displacement."
To support the occupation plan, the Israeli army, with the approval of the Security Cabinet, will be calling up tens of thousands of reservist soldiers, in the words of the IDF, to "intensify the pressure" on Hamas and "expand and intensify" operations in Gaza.
According to the Associated Press:
The new plan, which the officials said was meant to help Israel achieve its war aims of defeating Hamas and freeing hostages held in Gaza, also would push hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to southern Gaza, what would likely exacerbate an already dire humanitarian crisis.
Since a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas collapsed in mid-March, Israel has unleashed fierce strikes on the territory that have killed hundreds. It has captured swathes of territory and now controls roughly 50% of Gaza. Before the truce ended, Israel halted all humanitarian aid into Gaza, including food, fuel and water, setting off what is believed to the be the worst humanitarian crisis in nearly 19 months of war.
The ban on aid has prompted widespread hunger and shortages have set off looting.
In addition to expanded military operations, the Israelis also presented a new approach to distribution of aid on Sunday that would include the use of private military contractors, also known as mercenaries. By relocating the civilian population to the south and forcing people to travel for food, water, and medicine only to designated "hubs" for relief, humanitarians said the plan violates all principles of human rights and the laws of war.
The Washington Postreports Monday that "American contractors" would be used to carry out the plan, which was presented to officials in the Trump administration on Friday.
According to the Post, "two U.S. security companies are expected to be contracted to handle logistics and provide security along initial distribution corridors and in and around the hubs."
The companies, Safe Reach Solutions and UG Solutions, organized and staffed a vehicle checkpoint along a major north-south road through Gaza during the ceasefire.
SRS, which is to handle planning and logistics, is headed by Phil Reilly, a former CIA senior intelligence officer with extensive overseas service who has held senior positions in other private security companies. SRS is to subcontract on-the-ground security operations to UG Solutions, headed by Jameson Govoni, a former Green Beret whose service from 2004 to 2015 included tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The security contractors are to be armed and have their own force protection. They will not have detention authority.
In response to the new distribution plan, the coalition of United Nations and NGOs operating in Gaza, known as the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), which operates within the U.N. Office of Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), issued a harsh rebuke to the Israelis, saying that the proposal "contravenes fundamental humanitarian principles and appears designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic–as part of a military strategy."
"The design of the plan presented to us will mean large parts of Gaza, including the less mobile and most vulnerable people, will continue to go without supplies," said the HCT in its statement. "It is dangerous, driving civilians into militarized zones to collect rations, threatening lives, including those of humanitarian workers, while further entrenching forced displacement."
The group added that both the U.N. Secretary-General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator in Gaza "have made clear that we will not participate in any scheme that does not adhere to the global humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality." Instead of the plan presented by the Israelis, the HCT called for an end to the imposed blockade so that neutral relief agencies could bring in the necessary supplies to the suffering population in Gaza.
Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), which helps distribute aid in Gaza and was presented with the plan, decried the proposal.
"After two months of devastating blockade and starvation of Gaza, Israeli officials demand that we shut down the universal aid distribution system run by the UN and NGOs like NRC," said Egeland. "They want to manipulate and militarize all aid to civilians, forcing us to deliver supplies through hubs designed by the Israeli military, once the government agrees to re-open crossings."
Adil Haque, law professor at Rutgers University and director of Just Security, said what the Israeli government is planning is "not an aid plan," but rather "an aid denial plan"—one that "makes a mockery of international humanitarian law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Asked If He Must Uphold the US Constitution, Trump Says: 'I Don't Know'
"I'm not a lawyer," the president said in a newly aired interview.
May 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump refused in an interview released Sunday to affirm that the nation's Constitution affords due process to citizens and noncitizens alike and that he, as president, must uphold that fundamental right.
"I don't know, I'm not a lawyer," Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker, who asked if the president agrees with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that everyone on U.S. soil is entitled to due process.
When Welker pointed to the Fifth Amendment—which states that "no person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"—Trump again replied that he's unsure and suggested granting due process to the undocumented immigrants he wants to deport would be too burdensome.
"We'd have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials," Trump said, echoing a sentiment that his vice president expressed last month.
Asked whether he needs to "uphold the Constitution of the United States as president," Trump replied, "I don't know."
Watch:
WELKER: The 5th Amendment says everyone deserves due process
TRUMP: It might say that, but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials pic.twitter.com/FMZQ7O9mTP
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 4, 2025
Trump, who similarly deferred to "the lawyers" when asked recently about his refusal to bring home wrongly deported Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, has unlawfully cited the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly remove undocumented immigrants from the U.S. without due process. Federal agents have also arrested and detained students, academics, and a current and former judge in recent weeks, heightening alarm over the administration's authoritarian tactics.
CNNreported Friday that the administration has "been examining whether it can label some suspected cartel and gang members inside the U.S. as 'enemy combatants' as a possible way to detain them more easily and limit their ability to challenge their imprisonment."
"Trump has expressed extreme frustration with federal courts halting many of those migrants' deportations, amid legal challenges questioning whether they were being afforded due process," the outlet added. "By labeling the migrants as enemy combatants, they would have fewer rights, the thinking goes."
Some top administration officials have publicly expressed disdain for the constitutional right to due process. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, wrote in a social media post last month that "the judicial process is for Americans" and "immediate deportation" is for undocumented immigrants.
The New Republic's Greg Sargent wrote in a column Saturday that "Miller appears to want Trump to have the power to declare undocumented immigrants to be terrorists and gang members by fiat; to have the power to absurdly decree them members of a hostile nation's invading army, again by fiat; and then to have quasi-unlimited power to remove them, unconstrained by any court."
"The more transparency we have gained into the rot of corruption and bad faith at the core of this whole saga, the worse it has come to look," Sargent continued. "Trump himself is exposing it all for what it truly is: the stuff of Mad Kings."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular