Senator Collins is wishy washy. She equivocates.
The Boston Globe wrote this:
Republican Senator Susan Collins, who is facing a tough reelection fight in Maine this fall, suggested Saturday that the Senate should not vote to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg until after the November election.
But, she said that the Senate could begin the process of considering a nominee from President Trump, and she did not unequivocally rule out voting for that nominee.
If the vote occurs after the election, during the lame duck session, Collins and others with doubts can vote for Trump’s choice without fear of voters.
Senator Lisa Murkowski flatly opposes a vote on a nominee. She says whoever is elected in November should make that choice. She is consistent with her position in 2016, when she oppose President Obama’s choice ten months before the election.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
More like Vassalates …
Hedgitates
Wawfuls
Rternates
Weavers
Mitchews
Rgiversates
Beats around the Bush
Sorry, misspelled Rturnates
Thank you!
The execrable NYT of course tried to present the execrable Susan Collins as coming out strongly against having a vote on a Trump nominee — they always give the right wing Republican narrative the credibility of fact, while anything said by the democrats is suspect.
What Susan Collins actually did was come out strongly against any vote before the election where she would have to remind Maine voters that she takes her marching orders from Trump and Barr. After November 3, if there is no agreed on “winner” that Trump and Barr acknowledge — which we all know there will not be — Collins will be free to do whatever Barr and Trump order her to do.
I say replace Susan Collins with Joan Collins.
Trump will get to replace the Supreme Court Justice because he won the 2016 election. It wouldn’t matter if the Maine Senator was Susan Collins or Joan Collins.
My concern about Trump appointing far right SC Justices (lifetime!) was a big factor in my vote for the democrat, even though the democrat wasn’t my first choice. I respect that other people didn’t think that this was a very important issue, but I hope they have changed their mind. I voted for the democrat because I knew that having this huge right wing SC majority would make it hard for progressive legislation to happen. So did Bernie Sanders.
I also voted for Hillary because the SCOTUS (plus the lower courts) is a huge, monumental and crucial issue. We already had a SCOTUS tilted rightward and now with Trump it’s almost totally right wing. And he has appointed over 200 righties to the lower courts. Breyer will probably retire next year or the following year and that leaves only Kagan and Sotomayor facing off against very right wing apparatchiks. This is all happening during a pandemic, yikes.
Here’s what the “execrable” NYT said, citing Collins:
“President Trump has the constitutional authority to make a nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s beginning the process of reviewing his nominee’s credentials,” Ms. Collins said.
“But she suggested that if former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. won the presidency, she would oppose moving forward with a nominee chosen by Mr. Trump.
“’In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the president or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd,’ Ms. Collins said.”
Nothing about moving ahead on anything other than the Judiciary Committee “beginning the process of reviewing the nominee’s credentials.” If Biden wins, not OK per Collins to move forward w/ it45’s nominee. Decision on SCOTUS should be made by winner of election, she says.
NYT is not “giv[ing] the right wing Republican narrative the credibility of fact, while anything said by the Democrats is suspect.” Dems said nothing here; NYT simply quotes Collins, who was clear. Boston Globe is reading in an equivocation that is not there. How do they get “she did not unequivocally rule out voting for that nominee” from what Collins said?
The execrable Globe is giving Collins wiggle room by inserting their own doubt into her unequivocal statement. The press—especially the New England press– shouldn’t be second-guessing her. She needs to be able to brought up short against her own words if she waffles– plainly, for all Maine voters to see.
NYT headline “Susan Collins says she opposes holding a vote on a replacement for Ginsburg before the election.”
“Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said on Saturday that she was opposed to holding a vote on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before the November election, and suggested that were he to lose, his successor should ultimately choose a nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
The reader has to read quite a ways and very closely to understand that Collins is making no promises at all except that she definitely opposes having to vote on Trump’s nomination before the election!
That’s all that she has committed to opposing. Collins left wiggle room about what she would do after the election but the article is written to portray Collins as if she was promising not to support any Trump nomination unless he wins. But she was not.
A good journalist would pin Susan Collins down. It really isn’t difficult. We want to report this accurately to Maine voters, Senator Collins, so are you stating for the record that you will oppose any Trump nomination for Supreme Court unless Trump is the declared victor of the 2020 election? Yes or no? If Collins can’t answer that with a “yes, I will oppose any Trump nomination unless Trump is the declared winner of the 2020 election”, then the NYT has no business writing anything that implies that is what Collins “suggested”. But that is exactly what they did.
Collins was waffling.
My bet is that if Trump loses, Susan Collins will vote for his nominee after the election. Whether she wins or loses her own race. She pretends to be a moderate, but always comes through when Mitch McConnell needs her vote.
Diane,
That’s what I think, too.
I also think that it would be very easy for the NYT reporter to pin Susan Collins down on this, and if she refuses to be pinned down, the NYT should report that truthfully.
“Susan Collins doesn’t want a vote on the Supreme Court before the election, but makes no promises about what she’d do after the election if Trump loses.”
If Susan Collins was a democrat, the NYT headline would be about how worried voters are about Collins waffling on this issue and how voters don’t trust Collins on this issue (with lots of quotes from former Collins’ voters who don’t trust her anymore.)
That article would be followed up the next day by a front page article about how the Collins campaign is grappling with the lack of trust voters have in Collins.
That article would be followed up the next day with an article about how the Collins’ campaign’s attempts to quell voters’ doubts about Collins aren’t working.
That article would be followed up the next day with a “think piece” analyzing why Susan Collins isn’t trusted by voters anymore with anonymous quotes about how badly her campaign is handling the many doubts voters in Maine have about Susan Collins’ integrity.
That article would be followed up with a new one: “Collins asked again to quell voters doubts about supporting a Trump nominee if Trump loses election, but she’s still remaining mum.”
That article would be followed up with: “Voter trust in Susan Collins rapidly decreasing.”
That would go on until the election.
But since Susan Collins is a Republican, the stories emphasize that Collins “suggests” she wouldn’t support a Trump nominee if Biden wins, which is nonsensical when Collins could easily answer yes or no to a question about whether she would.
But NYCPSP, is the NYT actually interviewing Collins, or just “reporting” on what she said? The NYT article you cite looks different from the one I cited, but neither as far as I can see is an interview. What one has to look hard for is what she actually said, which I don’t find it equivocal. The article you cite sounds like it makes her look equivocal for sure.
Here’s another example from Politico. And another example of how the ‘reporter’ (or here, nwsppr, by virtue of inserting headline) lends equivocation to a flat statement.
“In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the President or selecting a new one,
the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd…” “added that Trump has the “constitutional authority” to nominate a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and that she does not have an objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee starting the process of reviewing the nominee.”
That’s the sum total of her statement as reported everywhere. So how does Politico come up with the headline “Susan Collins Says Senate Should Not Vote on SCOTUS Nomination Before Election”? It’s an inference, not a cite, focusing on one piece of a several-part process referenced in her comments. They do it again in their opening para: “Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said on Saturday that the Senate should not vote on the nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice before the Nov. 3 election, arguing the nominee should be chosen by whoever wins the presidency.” She did not say the first half of that, but she did say the second half : “the nominee should be chosen by whoever wins the presidency.” If Biden wins, how can he do that if the Senate already voted/ confirmed Trump’s nominee during the lame-duck session?
I maintain that the media in its continual search for clickbait and controversy chooses to falsely interpret Colllins’ remarks as leaving herself wiggle-room. She didn’t, & she should be held to what she said.
If the vote occurs after the election, Collins will have won or lost. Then she votes on Trump’s nominee. If she votes yes, who will hold her accountable?
Susan Collins made an ambiguous statement.
Some may interpret that statement as an unambiguous promise to voters. Some don’t. Journalists should get her on record to clarify it – perhaps that only means she re-states it in a different way that leaves no doubt. If she won’t, that certainly indicates she intended it to be ambiguous. And voters need to know that before the election.
Right on. Collins wishes the new Justice were chosen by the next president.
But she didn’t say she would vote no on Trump’s nominee.
Susan Collins says: ““the nominee should be chosen by whoever wins the presidency.”
Susan Collins says a lot of things “should” happen. She often says Trump “should” do this or “should not” do that. But that has no bearing on her vote to allow him to do whatever he wants to do.
“the nominee should be chosen by whoever wins the presidency, and therefore I promise to voters that I will vote against any nominee from President Trump unless Trump is certified the winner in January of 2021.
The first statement isn’t ambiguous about what Susan Collins thinks “should” happen but it is completely ambiguous about what Susan Collins would do if what she believes “should” happen does not happen. We know from her long history of voting for things that aren’t what she thinks “should” happen that her preferences and votes are two separate things. We also know Collins will vote against things she believes “should” happen (like during the ACA votes) when the Republicans don’t want her to support it.
The second statement isn’t ambiguous about what Susan Collins will do if what she believes “should” happen does not happen.
There is a difference. But instead of even noticing that there was a difference, the NYT did Collins a favor by giving voters who want her to vote against Trump’s nominee the impression that Susan Collins had “suggested” she would vote against Trump’s nominee when Susan Collins did no such thing. She simply expressed her opinion on what “should” happen. And if the opposite happens, she can write a draft e-mail about how disappointed she is that what “should” happen didn’t happen. And then she can go vote to approve whatever did happen, since she made absolutely no promises at all not to do so.
Most likely, Susan Collins will be a lame duck herself, which makes her freer in the judicial vote. 😮
You mean she will need a high paying sinecure position funded by right wing billionaires?
No. I mean what I said. 😐
I have no interest in her future employment . 🔔
Eddie,
You may have no interest in Susan Collins’ future employment but I am quite sure that Susan Collins has an interest in Susan Collins’ future employment!
NYC, Susan Collins would become a lobbyist. 😁
Susan Collins could become a dancer, jewelry store owner or a yogi. 😊
Eddie,
Exactly right. After the election, Susan Collins will be free to vote without fear of her voters.
But not free from the fear of the lobbying shops that will want to pack her golden parachute.
There is always some lying done on this site.
This is what the media called “Mad Patriot News” is saying:
**Leftists threatened violence on social media Friday following the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.***
The 87-year-old passed away following a battle with cancer, the high court announced Friday evening.
“Our nation has lost a jurist of historic stature,” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement.
“We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her – a tireless and resolute champion of justice,” Roberts added.
Speculation immediately swirled as to whether President Donald Trump would appoint a replacement for Ginsburg, and indeed, Trump indicated Saturday that he intends to fill her seat “without delay.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had previously affirmed that he is ready and waiting for a nominee so the Senate can vote.
Radical-left activists have already burned, looted and rioted in cities across the country all summer.
There is no indication that they’ve suddenly embraced civility, so the threats feel slightly void, as they’ve already shown their hand.
There is no sense in trying to appease any of these people.
But if you thought Justice Brett Kavanaugh was put through hell on earth during his confirmation in 2018, it’s difficult to imagine what a nominee to replace Ginsburg would be put through.
According to ABC News, Trump is indeed planning to nominate a high court justice in the “coming days.”
It will take four GOP Senate votes to stop the nomination of the next Supreme Court justice. So far, we seem to have only one that we know of.
You are correct about four. I hope everyone will step up their communications with Republicans who are still backing Trump as if he is the almighty. He are not.
I intend to focus on Rob Portman who thinks of himself as Ohio’s nice and reasonable guy in the Senate. He is not. He is a GAGA. He goes along to get along with his Republican buddies who think is is ok for Trump to have lied about the virus, medical care, how to stope the raging fires in California, and who is fixated on calling anything he disagrees with as fake or unpatriotic.
In 2016, President Obama most certainly could replace a judge who died, retired or resigned. 😊
Federal judges must be approved by the Senate. The Republican majority in 2016 would not confirm Obama’s Supreme Court nominee
Oh dear. ☹️
Collinspeak
Susan Collins speaks
With tongue that has a fork
Her proclamation reeks
Of ocean bobbing cork
She’ll say a thing today
And something else next week
The public all will pay
For Susan Collinspeak
Perfect.
What a surprise!
As others have commented, there’s nothing to stop a swift replacement of RBG by GOP. Most likely they’ll nominate now, & save confirmation until after election when even lame-duck Reps can get their last licks in. My guess is that leaves Collins free to do whatever (we have never been able to count on her.)
Here’s my take on the supposed top two contenders:
Amy Barrett seems like a somewhat weak candidate in that she’s only 48, and her career has been almost entirely as a law professor, with just 3 years under her belt as an appeals court judge. Her main pull seems to be due to former clerkship to & close relationship with Scalia. She’s an originalist like him, though shows a little more flexibility on stare decisis than he did. Re: the assumption she would gladly strike down Roe v Wade:
2017: “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”
2013: ““The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand. The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.”
Barbara Lagoa is a little older [52] & has even less time on high courts: a few months on FL Supreme Court and a year as 11th circuit US court of appeals. But her experience prior to that includes a dozen years with FL’s appeals court, and prior time w/US Attorney’s office. Plus, her confirmation to US Court (unlike Barrett’s) was not particularly contentious. Plus—tho a member of Federalist Society [conservative judges] like all Trump picks– she does not carry the baggage of ‘strong’ Catholicism like Barrett. Hopefully it45 will lean toward her Cuban-American/ DeSantis/ FL connection: between the two I’d rather have this one.
I would prefer — by a factor of 100 million or so – having 4 or even 8 years of HRC as president than 3 or 4 decades of either of those two choices. And what’s most depressing is those are the 2 “better” options that Trump is likely to nominate!
I’ve seen “The Susan Collin’s Obsequiousness Hour” already. Maybe she can be “concerned” elsewhere? Our democracy is on the line and her kabuki theater is taking up valuable space when what we need right now are adults in the room.
I don’t know.
Maybe what we need is more kids in the room.
The children in the room
Are wiser than adults
So give the kids a broom
And let them sweep the dolts
Susan Collins may follow the “conscience” about which Bishop Alfred Schert of Allenton, Penn. pontificates, “It is the priests, bishops… obligation to inform the faithful about the hierarchy of issues that must be considered in conscience by every voting Catholic” i.e. top of the list- pro-birth.
Any observations about why Dem party messaging doesn’t call out Roman Catholic clergy for statements like,”you can’t be a Catholic and a Democrat”?
Unless the priests and bishops pay a price, they won’t stop politicking for the the GOP.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, they will still align with the despots, just as Jefferson warned.
The Washington Post
News Alert
Sept. 21, 8:49 a.m. EDT
Trump says he will name a Supreme Court nominee Friday or Saturday
President Trump said that would leave “plenty of time” for the Senate vote on his nominee before the November election.
During a phone-in interview on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends,” Trump said he is looking at five candidates, all women.
Any of the 5 not conservative religious?
Personally, I don’t care for the Clintons, especially with their scandals with their entourage winding up dead (Ron Brown) or in jail (Vince Foster). ☹️
I voted for the Electoral College electors to (s)elect Hillary Clinton. Why? She ran for an elective governmental office, won and has experience from it, unlike Ugh! who really has no experience in anything.
🤔
Corruption never ends with Trump.
……………………………………
Secret CIA Memo: Putin Probably Orchestrating Anti-Biden Disinformation Campaign
Jamie Ross
Reporter
Published
Sep. 22, 2020
6:37AM ET
Reuters/Mikhail Klimentyev
A top-secret CIA assessment has reportedly concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “probably directing” a disinformation campaign designed to damage Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 U.S. election. Citing two unnamed sources who reviewed the assessment, The Washington Post reported that the first line of the document states: “We assess that President Vladimir Putin and the senior most Russian officials are aware of and probably directing Russia’s influence operations aimed at denigrating the former U.S. vice president, supporting the U.S. president and fueling public discord ahead of the U.S. election in November.” The highly classified report was reportedly published internally at the end of August, and builds upon intelligence gathered by the FBI and the NSA.
The Post reports that the document also warns that Ukrainian lawmaker Andriy Derkach—who has been working publicly with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani for several months—has been spreading disparaging information about Biden inside the U.S. through his long list of influential contacts. President Trump last week attacked FBI Director Christopher Wray after he testified to Congress that the Bureau saw Russian interference in the election.
Read it at The Washington Post
I now have my mail-in ballot. I will personally drop it off at a voting place to be sure it gets counted. Trump wants to destroy the USPS and cry ‘voter fraud’ if he doesn’t win. Creepy person. States rights no longer count.
………………………..
DOJ Again Attacks Democrats, This Time With ‘Anarchist Jurisdiction’ Designation
The primary effects of William Barr’s eyebrow-raising designation of Seattle, Portland, and New York City as “anarchist jurisdictions” will, for now, be political.
With just weeks to go before the 2020 presidential election, the Justice Department is once again attacking elected Democratic officials, this time by designating New York City, Seattle, and Portland, Oregon, as “anarchist jurisdictions” and suggesting their federal funding may be in question.
The Justice Department, responding to a memo from President Donald Trump that attacked all three cities, said the cities have “permitted violence and destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities.” The news was leaked early to the conservative-leaning New York Post.
“When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs, it endangers innocent citizens who deserve to be protected, including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. “We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance. It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens.”
Under Trump’s memo, the director of the Office of Management and Budget is now supposed to “issue guidance to the heads of agencies on restricting eligibility of or otherwise disfavoring, to the maximum extent permitted by law, anarchist jurisdictions in the receipt of Federal grants that the agency has sufficient lawful discretion to restrict or otherwise disfavor anarchist jurisdictions from receiving.”…
Article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anarchist-jurisdictions-doj-trump-barr_n_5f68bcb2c5b6de79b678a064?ncid=engmodushpmg00000006
DeSantis is a Trump stooge. No wonder the COVID-19 numbers are so high in Florida.
?ref_src=twsrctfw|twcamptweetembed|twterm1308095991183220736|twgrshare_3&ref_url=https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/florida-gov-desantis-just-proposed-a-dangerous-bill-to-imperil-and-silence-protesters/
DeSantis is a Trump stooge. No wonder the COVID-19 numbers are so high.
Florida Gov. DeSantis just proposed a dangerous bill to imperil and silence protesters
The American Civil Liberties Union joined Florida Democrats on Monday in condemning a proposed bill by Gov. Ron DeSantis that would newly classify certain forms of protest as felonies and impose harsh penalties on some protesters.
Flanked by Republican lawmakers and law enforcement officials at an afternoon press conference in Winter Haven, DeSantis referred to Black Lives Matter protests in Portland, Oregon as he announced the proposed legislation.
“I look at what goes on in Portland. They’ll have people, they’ll arrest them,” DeSantis said. “They’re all scraggly-looking Antifa-types. They get their mugshot taken, then they get released. It’s like a carousel; on and on it goes.”
“That’s not going to happen in here in Florida,” the governor vowed.
The “Combatting Violence, Disorder, and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act” would make it a felony to “obstruct traffic during an unpermitted protest,” while absolving motorists of liability for “injury or death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob.” It would also make it a felony for anyone gathered in a group of seven or more people “to cause damage to property or injury to other persons,” or to “destroy public property” or topple monuments. Jailed protesters will not be granted bail until at least their first court appearance…
https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/florida-gov-desantis-just-proposed-a-dangerous-bill-to-imperil-and-silence-protesters/#.X2no2gT8lhY.gmail
I hate to think of the damage that will be happening to this country. Supreme Court Justices DO make bad decisions and these will be compounded by the conservatives.
…………………………………………..
Chicago Tribune
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
BREAKING NEWS
Sen. Romney announces support for Supreme Court nomination process as it becomes clear GOP has votes to proceed with coming Trump pick
Republicans have the votes to confirm President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick before the Nov. 3 presidential election, according to the Senate Judiciary chairman.
You are so right about Susan Collins… It’s all Putin’s puppetry and Americana are blind to Presidential Piracy https://medium.com/@reneesandell/presidential-piracy-18cbd572bdd9