Collins: Won't support SCOTUS pick hostile to abortion rights

[TheProgressivePatriot]

'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"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 on CNN's "State of the Union."'

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Interesting.

Interesting? That is all that you can say? "Interesting," after posting the blurb without a valid link.

 

[OldLady]

'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"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 on CNN's "State of the Union."'

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Interesting.

We’ll see if she actually sticks to her guns. She didn’t say boo about the last pick or when mitch stole our judge

She’s a gullible dope. Or she has diminished capacity.

I repeat, Senator Collins did:
Actually, she did say boo rather loudly about Mitch stealing that seat, bless her. I believe she was one of the first and only senators to meet with Garland.

GOP senator ‘more convinced than ever’ that Garland should get hearing

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I couldn't even read past the title. Abortion is not a "right". There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says a woman has the "right" to an abortion.

Is it possible that you do not understand that there is such a thing as unenumerated rights? Rights that are implied or that have been established by case law.....which is in fact constitutional law.

 

[task0778]

Understand the thought, but one might also say that excluding rape or incest shows compassion for a young woman who has been brutalized. Many of whom are underage. Should we then not allow her that choice?

They should ALL be allowed that choice, in my opinion.

What about the unborn fetus? Where's your compassion for them? Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?

I came back here to make a contribution on the Supreme Court pick, not to get entangled in an abortion thread. I know I stuck my foot in, but I am now taking it out. We can talk about Roe v. Wade somewhere else.

Okay. Back to RvW, in the eyes of some people the SCOTUS seems to have exercised quite a bit of judicial discretion in this case. Using the right to privacy does seem a stretch to me. OTOH, I am also not sure we should have a federal law that says abortion is illegal either. Obviously I am somewhat conflicted on this, because we have the question of the rights to consider of the unborn person. Maybe it would be best left up to the individual states to decide.

In any event, I would not want to confirm a person who has already made their decision on this issue, independent of the situation and circumstances of the case brought before the Court.

My greatest hope is that any individual chosen for the Supreme Court would do exactly that--make their decision based on the situation and the circumstances of the case brought before the Court. And I still have hope that indeed most of the Justices, realizing the gravity of their positions and the historic responsibility of their decisions, do exactly that. We know Scalia had said, "It's a law. It's a stupid law, but it's a law."
I am hoping that a lot of this screeching is fear mongering to get the Dems inspired to vote, although voting isn't going to do a damned thing for them, so I'm not sure why it would.
I'm going to pull the old lady routine and hope my government and my Court are far better people than the politicians will admit.

Well, if the Dems can regain control of the Senate then they can block future SCOTUS justice confirmations, so that's a big deal. I don't think the replacement for Kennedy will go all that smoothly, all the Dems need is one Repub to vote against it. I wouldn't count any chickens if I were the GOPers.

As for being better people, I can't say that I'm all that optimistic about that. Everything seems so tribal these days, which does not lend itself to real leadership and optimal governance.

 

[IsaacNewton]

'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"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 on CNN's "State of the Union."'

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Interesting.

The Republican party is in the midst of realizing what will really happen if they in fact overturn Roe V Wade, stripping women of rights they have had their entire lives and thought were settled forever.

Blue Wave? You'll see the ocean get up on two legs and stomp Republicans guts out. You want to see what shit hitting the fan really looks like, wait for the moment this crooked Supreme Court actually overturns Roe V Wade. Republicans know what will happen. They've lost the popular vote for president the last 6 or 7 presidential elections and demographics are about ten years away from rendering them permanent runner ups in national elections. They are hanging by a thread right now. If Roe V Wade is overturned they will lose it all in one election.

 

[JGalt]

They should ALL be allowed that choice, in my opinion.

What about the unborn fetus? Where's your compassion for them? Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?

I came back here to make a contribution on the Supreme Court pick, not to get entangled in an abortion thread. I know I stuck my foot in, but I am now taking it out. We can talk about Roe v. Wade somewhere else.

Okay. Back to RvW, in the eyes of some people the SCOTUS seems to have exercised quite a bit of judicial discretion in this case. Using the right to privacy does seem a stretch to me. OTOH, I am also not sure we should have a federal law that says abortion is illegal either. Obviously I am somewhat conflicted on this, because we have the question of the rights to consider of the unborn person. Maybe it would be best left up to the individual states to decide.

In any event, I would not want to confirm a person who has already made their decision on this issue, independent of the situation and circumstances of the case brought before the Court.

My greatest hope is that any individual chosen for the Supreme Court would do exactly that--make their decision based on the situation and the circumstances of the case brought before the Court. And I still have hope that indeed most of the Justices, realizing the gravity of their positions and the historic responsibility of their decisions, do exactly that. We know Scalia had said, "It's a law. It's a stupid law, but it's a law."
I am hoping that a lot of this screeching is fear mongering to get the Dems inspired to vote, although voting isn't going to do a damned thing for them, so I'm not sure why it would.
I'm going to pull the old lady routine and hope my government and my Court are far better people than the politicians will admit.

Well, if the Dems can regain control of the Senate then they can block future SCOTUS justice confirmations, so that's a big deal. I don't think the replacement for Kennedy will go all that smoothly, all the Dems need is one Repub to vote against it. I wouldn't count any chickens if I were the GOPers.

As for being better people, I can't say that I'm all that optimistic about that. Everything seems so tribal these days, which does not lend itself to real leadership and optimal governance.

The Democrats are essentially powerless to prevent Trump's next SC Justice, and they know it. Their delaying tactics will fail, since McConnell will, if he has to, keep the Senate in session 24 hours a day, seven days a week until Trump’s pick is confirmed. Nor can they be optimistic about peeling off the two pro-abortion Republican senators (Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins); even if they succeed, some Democrats facing reelection in states that Trump won will likely defect in the opposite direction. Remember: Three Democrats and every Republican voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch, so whomever Trump picks will be a shoo-in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.

Others argue that an abortion should not be performed even in case of pregnancy by rape or incest.

From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest. Those children have as much right to live as any other child. Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.

Understand the thought, but one might also say that excluding rape or incest shows compassion for a young woman who has been brutalized. Many of whom are underage. Should we then not allow her that choice?

They should ALL be allowed that choice, in my opinion.

What about the unborn fetus? Where's your compassion for them? Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?

That is an emotional snow flake liberal argument type argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

100% ^^^ right

the Dems blew it

 

[JakeStarkey]

100% ^^^ right the Dems blew it

They have lost SCOTUS for the time being

 

[task0778]

There is nothing the Democrats can do about the fact that they have lost the Supreme Court. They blew that when they lost the 2016 election. They made choices about Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, about their candidate, about a lot of things, and they blew it. They lost to Donald Trump, for Goddsake. Think about that for a minute. smh

Anyway, on Meet the Press this morning, Kim Atkins said something sane about all the Dem's brave talk about "blocking" the nomination and perhaps getting a couple of Republicans to reject whoever is nominated by the Pres next week. She said, rightly I think:
for Democrats, the fight was in 2016. They missed the fight. That is when there was a Supreme Court justice being held up. But maybe because Merrick Garland wasn't the progressive firebrand that really stirred them up, or maybe they missed the fact that there was a path to Donald Trump to 270, they didn't fight that fight then. Now it's too late and they can only message the way we saw Senator Cantwell do as best as she could. But that's all Democrats have right now.

It's too late. There is nothing the Dems can do to stop this train. It's time to start pulling themselves together and planning how to survive. Resist and Reject are not going to get us anywhere. It hasn't gotten us anywhere yet.

Take heart - the GOP will find a way to screw it up, they can't seem to get their act together. The question is whether the Dems will have a viable candidate to oppose Trump, assuming he runs for re-election. Right now the Dems appear to be moving further to the Left and that isn't going to win them many votes out there in flyover country.

Nor among Independents, if I'm any indication. While I wholly support universal healthcare and investing more in bringing the poor out of poverty, there is an awful lot of theatrics going on right now that is way beyond what brings out my sympathy. Maybe it's more the radical rhetoric than the underlying ideals, but I've never completely agreed with the Dems, anyway, and it is becoming harder to say yeah, I like that.

there is an awful lot of theatrics going on right now that is way beyond what brings out my sympathy.

No kidding. You got some of that on your side, and I got Trump.

Maybe it's more the radical rhetoric than the underlying ideals, but I've never completely agreed with the Dems, anyway, and it is becoming harder to say yeah, I like that

I do not agree completely with my side either, and in some cases it's getting harder to tell them apart. What the hell happened "we gotta cut spending"? Trump is talking about more tax cuts, but I can't support that; we're supposed to be more fiscally responsible than the Dems are, but we ain't. It's enough to drive a man to drink.

Well, not really.

 

[OldLady]

They should ALL be allowed that choice, in my opinion.

What about the unborn fetus? Where's your compassion for them? Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?

I came back here to make a contribution on the Supreme Court pick, not to get entangled in an abortion thread. I know I stuck my foot in, but I am now taking it out. We can talk about Roe v. Wade somewhere else.

Okay. Back to RvW, in the eyes of some people the SCOTUS seems to have exercised quite a bit of judicial discretion in this case. Using the right to privacy does seem a stretch to me. OTOH, I am also not sure we should have a federal law that says abortion is illegal either. Obviously I am somewhat conflicted on this, because we have the question of the rights to consider of the unborn person. Maybe it would be best left up to the individual states to decide.

In any event, I would not want to confirm a person who has already made their decision on this issue, independent of the situation and circumstances of the case brought before the Court.

My greatest hope is that any individual chosen for the Supreme Court would do exactly that--make their decision based on the situation and the circumstances of the case brought before the Court. And I still have hope that indeed most of the Justices, realizing the gravity of their positions and the historic responsibility of their decisions, do exactly that. We know Scalia had said, "It's a law. It's a stupid law, but it's a law."
I am hoping that a lot of this screeching is fear mongering to get the Dems inspired to vote, although voting isn't going to do a damned thing for them, so I'm not sure why it would.
I'm going to pull the old lady routine and hope my government and my Court are far better people than the politicians will admit.

Well, if the Dems can regain control of the Senate then they can block future SCOTUS justice confirmations, so that's a big deal. I don't think the replacement for Kennedy will go all that smoothly, all the Dems need is one Repub to vote against it. I wouldn't count any chickens if I were the GOPers.

As for being better people, I can't say that I'm all that optimistic about that. Everything seems so tribal these days, which does not lend itself to real leadership and optimal governance.

The tribalism is also being fed by the media, which is just out to sell it's brand. Most of the people are somewhere in the sensible middle, and they're going to stay there because the majority of people are just not that political.

Anyway, back to the SC pick:
Even if the Dems regain the Senate in November, are they going to serially block every justice that Trump appoints until the end of 2020? Do you really think the people will stand for that? It is not even popular AT ALL for the Dems to try "ignoring" this one using the "McConnell rule." I know it is getting lip service, right now, but back at home the people are saying oh no you don't. Really, one robbery is enough. Having the Dems put on their ski masks and do the same thing is unconscionable and I'm not the only one who thinks it will backfire if they try it.

 

[task0778]

What about the unborn fetus? Where's your compassion for them? Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?

I came back here to make a contribution on the Supreme Court pick, not to get entangled in an abortion thread. I know I stuck my foot in, but I am now taking it out. We can talk about Roe v. Wade somewhere else.

Okay. Back to RvW, in the eyes of some people the SCOTUS seems to have exercised quite a bit of judicial discretion in this case. Using the right to privacy does seem a stretch to me. OTOH, I am also not sure we should have a federal law that says abortion is illegal either. Obviously I am somewhat conflicted on this, because we have the question of the rights to consider of the unborn person. Maybe it would be best left up to the individual states to decide.

In any event, I would not want to confirm a person who has already made their decision on this issue, independent of the situation and circumstances of the case brought before the Court.

My greatest hope is that any individual chosen for the Supreme Court would do exactly that--make their decision based on the situation and the circumstances of the case brought before the Court. And I still have hope that indeed most of the Justices, realizing the gravity of their positions and the historic responsibility of their decisions, do exactly that. We know Scalia had said, "It's a law. It's a stupid law, but it's a law."
I am hoping that a lot of this screeching is fear mongering to get the Dems inspired to vote, although voting isn't going to do a damned thing for them, so I'm not sure why it would.
I'm going to pull the old lady routine and hope my government and my Court are far better people than the politicians will admit.

Well, if the Dems can regain control of the Senate then they can block future SCOTUS justice confirmations, so that's a big deal. I don't think the replacement for Kennedy will go all that smoothly, all the Dems need is one Repub to vote against it. I wouldn't count any chickens if I were the GOPers.

As for being better people, I can't say that I'm all that optimistic about that. Everything seems so tribal these days, which does not lend itself to real leadership and optimal governance.

The Democrats are essentially powerless to prevent Trump's next SC Justice, and they know it. Their delaying tactics will fail, since McConnell will, if he has to, keep the Senate in session 24 hours a day, seven days a week until Trump’s pick is confirmed. Nor can they be optimistic about peeling off the two pro-abortion Republican senators (Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins); even if they succeed, some Democrats facing reelection in states that Trump won will likely defect in the opposite direction. Remember: Three Democrats and every Republican voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch, so whomever Trump picks will be a shoo-in.

You can bet what you like that all those Senate Dems up for re-election are going to make sure they know how vital that vote is going to be, and don't think the Repubs are going to make sure that vote happens at least a week before election day. They won't vote against the person if they think it'll cost them their seat in the Senate, BUT they will if they think they can get away with it. Gonna be an interesting campaign season.

 

[OldLady]

There is nothing the Democrats can do about the fact that they have lost the Supreme Court. They blew that when they lost the 2016 election. They made choices about Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, about their candidate, about a lot of things, and they blew it. They lost to Donald Trump, for Goddsake. Think about that for a minute. smh

Anyway, on Meet the Press this morning, Kim Atkins said something sane about all the Dem's brave talk about "blocking" the nomination and perhaps getting a couple of Republicans to reject whoever is nominated by the Pres next week. She said, rightly I think:
for Democrats, the fight was in 2016. They missed the fight. That is when there was a Supreme Court justice being held up. But maybe because Merrick Garland wasn't the progressive firebrand that really stirred them up, or maybe they missed the fact that there was a path to Donald Trump to 270, they didn't fight that fight then. Now it's too late and they can only message the way we saw Senator Cantwell do as best as she could. But that's all Democrats have right now.

It's too late. There is nothing the Dems can do to stop this train. It's time to start pulling themselves together and planning how to survive. Resist and Reject are not going to get us anywhere. It hasn't gotten us anywhere yet.

Take heart - the GOP will find a way to screw it up, they can't seem to get their act together. The question is whether the Dems will have a viable candidate to oppose Trump, assuming he runs for re-election. Right now the Dems appear to be moving further to the Left and that isn't going to win them many votes out there in flyover country.

Nor among Independents, if I'm any indication. While I wholly support universal healthcare and investing more in bringing the poor out of poverty, there is an awful lot of theatrics going on right now that is way beyond what brings out my sympathy. Maybe it's more the radical rhetoric than the underlying ideals, but I've never completely agreed with the Dems, anyway, and it is becoming harder to say yeah, I like that.

there is an awful lot of theatrics going on right now that is way beyond what brings out my sympathy.

No kidding. You got some of that on your side, and I got Trump.

Maybe it's more the radical rhetoric than the underlying ideals, but I've never completely agreed with the Dems, anyway, and it is becoming harder to say yeah, I like that

I do not agree completely with my side either, and in some cases it's getting harder to tell them apart. What the hell happened "we gotta cut spending"? Trump is talking about more tax cuts, but I can't support that; we're supposed to be more fiscally responsible than the Dems are, but we ain't. It's enough to drive a man to drink.

Well, not really.

There's always "unaffiliated," and pray for a good third party candidate.

 

[Coyote]

I would have a real problem with Roe v Wade being overturned that goes beyond my stance as pro-choice. It's very much settled law with a huge amount of caselaw now supporting it. If it could be overturned, then precedent and case law no longer matter and ANYTHING can be overturned at ANYTIME. That should worry everyone.

 

[task0778]

There is nothing the Democrats can do about the fact that they have lost the Supreme Court. They blew that when they lost the 2016 election. They made choices about Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, about their candidate, about a lot of things, and they blew it. They lost to Donald Trump, for Goddsake. Think about that for a minute. smh

Anyway, on Meet the Press this morning, Kim Atkins said something sane about all the Dem's brave talk about "blocking" the nomination and perhaps getting a couple of Republicans to reject whoever is nominated by the Pres next week. She said, rightly I think:
for Democrats, the fight was in 2016. They missed the fight. That is when there was a Supreme Court justice being held up. But maybe because Merrick Garland wasn't the progressive firebrand that really stirred them up, or maybe they missed the fact that there was a path to Donald Trump to 270, they didn't fight that fight then. Now it's too late and they can only message the way we saw Senator Cantwell do as best as she could. But that's all Democrats have right now.

It's too late. There is nothing the Dems can do to stop this train. It's time to start pulling themselves together and planning how to survive. Resist and Reject are not going to get us anywhere. It hasn't gotten us anywhere yet.

Take heart - the GOP will find a way to screw it up, they can't seem to get their act together. The question is whether the Dems will have a viable candidate to oppose Trump, assuming he runs for re-election. Right now the Dems appear to be moving further to the Left and that isn't going to win them many votes out there in flyover country.

Nor among Independents, if I'm any indication. While I wholly support universal healthcare and investing more in bringing the poor out of poverty, there is an awful lot of theatrics going on right now that is way beyond what brings out my sympathy. Maybe it's more the radical rhetoric than the underlying ideals, but I've never completely agreed with the Dems, anyway, and it is becoming harder to say yeah, I like that.

there is an awful lot of theatrics going on right now that is way beyond what brings out my sympathy.

No kidding. You got some of that on your side, and I got Trump.

Maybe it's more the radical rhetoric than the underlying ideals, but I've never completely agreed with the Dems, anyway, and it is becoming harder to say yeah, I like that

I do not agree completely with my side either, and in some cases it's getting harder to tell them apart. What the hell happened "we gotta cut spending"? Trump is talking about more tax cuts, but I can't support that; we're supposed to be more fiscally responsible than the Dems are, but we ain't. It's enough to drive a man to drink.

Well, not really.

There's always "unaffiliated," and pray for a good third party candidate.

Actually, I am unaffiliated, always have been. Matter of fact, I voted for a 3rd party candidate for President a couple of times cuz I couldn't stand either of the 2 major party nominees. I wish we had a decent 3rd party that could garner enough seats in Congress to make a difference. And eventually influence the presidential race too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

McConnell will wait until the lame duck season. Either way, he wins. BUT if some of the more sane senators lose or are retiring, they can vote as they really feel.

Fun times.

 

[Synthaholic]

What about the unborn fetus? Where's your compassion for them? Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?

I came back here to make a contribution on the Supreme Court pick, not to get entangled in an abortion thread. I know I stuck my foot in, but I am now taking it out. We can talk about Roe v. Wade somewhere else.

Okay. Back to RvW, in the eyes of some people the SCOTUS seems to have exercised quite a bit of judicial discretion in this case. Using the right to privacy does seem a stretch to me. OTOH, I am also not sure we should have a federal law that says abortion is illegal either. Obviously I am somewhat conflicted on this, because we have the question of the rights to consider of the unborn person. Maybe it would be best left up to the individual states to decide.

In any event, I would not want to confirm a person who has already made their decision on this issue, independent of the situation and circumstances of the case brought before the Court.

My greatest hope is that any individual chosen for the Supreme Court would do exactly that--make their decision based on the situation and the circumstances of the case brought before the Court. And I still have hope that indeed most of the Justices, realizing the gravity of their positions and the historic responsibility of their decisions, do exactly that. We know Scalia had said, "It's a law. It's a stupid law, but it's a law."
I am hoping that a lot of this screeching is fear mongering to get the Dems inspired to vote, although voting isn't going to do a damned thing for them, so I'm not sure why it would.
I'm going to pull the old lady routine and hope my government and my Court are far better people than the politicians will admit.

Well, if the Dems can regain control of the Senate then they can block future SCOTUS justice confirmations, so that's a big deal. I don't think the replacement for Kennedy will go all that smoothly, all the Dems need is one Repub to vote against it. I wouldn't count any chickens if I were the GOPers.

As for being better people, I can't say that I'm all that optimistic about that. Everything seems so tribal these days, which does not lend itself to real leadership and optimal governance.

The Democrats are essentially powerless to prevent Trump's next SC Justice, and they know it. Their delaying tactics will fail, since McConnell will, if he has to, keep the Senate in session 24 hours a day, seven days a week until Trump’s pick is confirmed. Nor can they be optimistic about peeling off the two pro-abortion Republican senators (Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins); even if they succeed, some Democrats facing reelection in states that Trump won will likely defect in the opposite direction. Remember: Three Democrats and every Republican voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch, so whomever Trump picks will be a shoo-in.

I believe the Democrats will stick together.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not a shoo in but eventually will be confirmed, yes

If Trump continues the way he is and the Mueller reports is absolutely damning for Trump when it is released on 15 Sep and t he result is a super majority Dem congress, then both Gorsuch and the new justice can be impeached, tried, and removed on political grounds that McConnell overreached his power. leaving the Court with a 4 to 3 liberal majority

 

[DOTR]

I would have a real problem with Roe v Wade being overturned that goes beyond my stance as pro-choice. It's very much settled law with a huge amount of caselaw now supporting it. If it could be overturned, then precedent and case law no longer matter and ANYTHING can be overturned at ANYTIME. That should worry everyone.

Case law and precedent mattered not a white to Roe vs Wade. It overturned centuries of p[recedent and the laws of all 50 states.

"Revolutionaries despise traditional authority until they gain power, at which point authority again becomes sacred. Since the legal arguments of Roe are virtually nonexistent, it can only be defended by the argument from authority, stare decisis, a principle which Roe itself thoroughly repudiated."

Through the looking glass.

 

[Coyote]

I would have a real problem with Roe v Wade being overturned that goes beyond my stance as pro-choice. It's very much settled law with a huge amount of caselaw now supporting it. If it could be overturned, then precedent and case law no longer matter and ANYTHING can be overturned at ANYTIME. That should worry everyone.

Case law and precedent mattered not a white to Roe vs Wade. It overturned centuries of p[recedent and the laws of all 50 states.

"Revolutionaries despise traditional authority until they gain power, at which point authority again becomes sacred. Since the legal arguments of Roe are virtually nonexistent, it can only be defended by the argument from authority, stare decisis, a principle which Roe itself thoroughly repudiated."

Through the looking glass.

Untrue. It has stood up to numerous challenges.

Wonder if the Right will target Brown v Board of education next?