As the four-year anniversary of the overturning of Roe v. Wade approached, civil rights attorney Azaleea Carlea of Portland highlighted Sen. Susan Collins’ pivotal role in this decision. Collins’ vote to appoint Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, despite assurances that Roe v. Wade was settled law, is seen as directly leading to the rollback of abortion rights. This has resulted in 63 million women living in states with bans and has exacerbated issues with emergency medical treatment, maternal health, and the safety of domestic violence survivors. Therefore, many in Maine believe Collins’ actions demonstrate a lack of accountability and fitness for office, advocating for a change in representation.
Read More
Four years on, Maine Democrats are increasingly vocal in their conviction that Senator Susan Collins’ vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court directly contributed to the landmark reversal of abortion rights. This sentiment, echoed by many who feel betrayed by the senator’s actions, stems from the belief that Collins was a crucial, perhaps decisive, vote for a nominee who ultimately played a key role in overturning Roe v. Wade. The argument, frequently made, is that her support for Kavanaugh, despite his perceived flaws and the potential implications for reproductive freedom, was a critical misstep with devastating consequences.
The core of the accusation lies in Senator Collins’ stated assurances that she was satisfied with Kavanaugh’s private assurances that Roe v.… Continue reading
Senator Susan Collins recently drew criticism for misstating the Supreme Court’s vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as 6-3, when the actual decision was 5-4. She also claimed Justice Brett Kavanaugh would not have been a pivotal vote, despite his role in the majority that ended the federal right to abortion. This assertion was directly challenged by her Democratic opponent, Graham Platner, who accused Collins of lying and stated that Kavanaugh was indeed the deciding vote. Collins has maintained she does not regret confirming Kavanaugh, even as millions of women now face restricted access to reproductive healthcare.
Read More
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 More
US Senate hopeful Graham Platner advocates for Democrats to “deal with” the Supreme Court if they regain power, suggesting oversight and potential impeachments to remove justices. He believes holding Supreme Court justices to the same ethical standards as federal judges could lead to the impeachment and removal of at least two. Platner also proposes expanding the Supreme Court’s size when a Democrat is in the White House, emphasizing the need for senators willing to wield such power.
Read More
Recently released emails and text messages reveal Jeffrey Epstein’s close monitoring and commentary on Brett Kavanaugh’s 2018 Supreme Court confirmation. Epstein expressed sympathy for Kavanaugh, suggesting Republicans should have been more aggressive in questioning Christine Blasey Ford, who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault. He further criticized the choice of a female prosecutor for cross-examining Ford, believing it to be a significant misstep, and proposed specific lines of questioning he felt should have been pursued. These communications also indicate Epstein’s prior preference for Kavanaugh’s nomination, discussing it with close associate Kenneth Starr.
Read More
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s previous statement on immigration enforcement, which allowed ethnicity to be a “relevant factor,” has been criticized for being exploited by immigration officials leading to racial profiling and excessive force. In a recent Supreme Court decision, Kavanaugh has seemingly backtracked on his position by stating that race and ethnicity should not be considered in immigration stops, contradicting his earlier stance. This move, which did not directly address or acknowledge the previous controversy, has been interpreted as an attempt to distance himself from the “Kavanaugh stops” label, and the resulting criticism without taking responsibility. Despite this attempted course correction, commentators argue that the Justice cannot undo the legal and practical impact of his initial statements.
Read More
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested President Donald Trump might utilize the Insurrection Act following the Supreme Court’s refusal to allow the deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago to support immigration enforcement. Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion clarified the ruling’s limited scope, suggesting the president could opt to use the U.S. military to protect federal property. This sparked discussion, with some Trump supporters advocating for invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to deploy troops to suppress domestic violence. Legal experts such as William Banks have noted the act’s broad triggering language and that it constitutes an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.
Read More
A California resident, Nicholas Roske, was sentenced to eight years and one month in prison for attempting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Although prosecutors sought a sentence of no less than 30 years, the judge cited Roske’s abandonment of the plot and atypical circumstances as reasons for leniency. Roske, who had a pistol, knife, and other tools, told investigators she was angry about the leaked draft opinion on Roe v. Wade and believed Kavanaugh would vote to loosen gun laws. The Justice Department has announced plans to appeal what it considers an insufficient sentence.
Read More
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Justice Kavanaugh suggested that Americans roughed up by ICE agents can sue in federal court. However, civil rights attorneys are pushing back, noting the court’s conservative majority has made such cases difficult to win. The court has limited the ability to sue federal law enforcement for excessive force claims in prior decisions, including border incidents. Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing the ruling allows targeting of Latinos.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood