By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Susan Collins recently faced significant criticism for inaccurately stating that the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade was a 6-3 ruling and that Justice Brett Kavanaugh was not a pivotal vote. The actual vote was 5-4, with Justice Kavanaugh casting the deciding vote. Her Democratic challenger, Graham Platner, accused Collins of lying and highlighted her role in confirming Kavanaugh, despite the known implications for abortion rights. Organizations like Planned Parenthood Action Fund have endorsed Platner, citing Collins’s record and the impact of the Dobbs decision on reproductive healthcare access.
Read the original article here
It appears there’s quite a stir regarding Senator Susan Collins and her recent defense of her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The core of the contention seems to stem from an assertion that Collins is misrepresenting key facts, specifically the vote count on the Dobbs decision that ultimately ended federal abortion rights.
The narrative being presented suggests that Collins has claimed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was a 6-3 vote. However, the argument strongly made is that this assertion is factually incorrect, and indeed, is being described as a deliberate falsehood. The actual vote on the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is widely reported as having been 5-4, a much narrower margin than the 6-3 figure cited. This distinction is significant, as it directly impacts the perceived role of individual justices and, by extension, the senators who confirmed them.
The criticism directed at Senator Collins points out that she voted to confirm Justice Kavanaugh, who was a key figure in the majority that overturned Roe v. Wade. The argument is that by misstating the vote count, Collins is attempting to downplay the significance of her own vote and, by extension, the role she played in shaping the current Supreme Court. The claim is that she is trying to distance herself from the outcome by obscuring the fact that her confirmation vote for Kavanaugh was, in essence, a deciding factor in the 5-4 split that led to the end of Roe v. Wade.
This alleged misrepresentation is being characterized not just as a simple error, but as a deliberate attempt to deceive voters, particularly in her home state of Maine. The commentary suggests a pattern of behavior where Collins, while presenting herself as a moderate or even a defender of certain rights, ultimately casts votes that align with a more conservative agenda. The argument is that she strategically votes against her party only when she knows her vote won’t change the outcome, thereby creating an illusion of independence while still enabling conservative judicial appointments.
Furthermore, there’s a suggestion that Collins’ initial promise to serve only two terms, a promise she has evidently not kept, fuels the skepticism about her current statements. This historical instance of what’s perceived as breaking a promise is being used to bolster the argument that her current defense of her Kavanaugh vote, and the associated vote count, is also disingenuous. The idea is that if she was willing to be untruthful about her tenure, she’s more than capable of being untruthful about judicial decisions.
The broader context of this criticism involves the Federalist Society and its co-chair, Leonard Leo, who is mentioned as a significant funder and architect of the strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade. The implication is that Collins’ actions are not independent but are aligned with a larger, well-funded agenda that has been years in the making. Her vote to confirm Kavanaugh, therefore, is seen as a critical step in this long-term plan.
The debate also touches upon the nature of judicial confirmation itself, with some suggesting that while the justices might not have technically lied under oath when they stated Roe v. Wade was precedent, they were certainly misleading. The argument is that while the Supreme Court can overturn precedent, the perceived candor of the nominees during their confirmation hearings is crucial. Collins’ defense, in this view, is an attempt to gloss over the fact that she supported justices who, in the eyes of her critics, were disingenuous about their intentions regarding Roe v. Wade.
Ultimately, the sentiment expressed is one of deep disappointment and anger directed at Senator Collins for what is perceived as a calculated deception. The critics believe she is actively misleading the public about her role in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and they are calling for voters, particularly women, to recognize her instrumental part in this significant shift in abortion rights. The focus remains on the alleged factual inaccuracy regarding the 6-3 vote, which is seen as a key piece of evidence in the broader accusation of her being a dishonest politician.