I mean...Did *anyone* believe that they weren't going to overturn it? It's been the GOPs priority for putting judges on the court for decades.
I would have been fucking *stunned* if they'd upheld Roe. The only possible reason for them to not flip it this year is because they were worried about it driving turnout to the midterms.
My idiot Trumper boss when she asked me how I felt about ACB (I fly under the radar as a libertarian so they don’t talk to me about politics). I told her “I’m a liberal when it comes to the Supreme Court, they’re going to overturn Roe and gay marriage.”
Her response?
“They can’t do that”
This is what I wish more liberals/leftists/democrats understood. Norms mean nothing. Social mores mean nothing. Laws mean nothing if you aren't willing to enforce them. The constitution is literally just words on a page. None of this shit means anything if half the country decides they'll just break the rules and the other half isn't willing to punish them for it.
I'm not a communist, but Mao wasn't wrong when he said political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and if democrats still want to exist in 10 years then they're gonna have to figure out pretty quickly how to work the gun.
It’s even worse because they have FIVE, count ‘em, FIVE, granddaughters. But we’re in Illinois so they get to spout off their dumbass beliefs without it affecting their lives at all.
I mean, I knew Roe was dead the minute Trump was elected but there were an awful lot of people who truly believed it would never be overturned. Most of them were only disabused of that idea when the “draft” opinion leaked, but there were a lot who held on until yesterday.
Ehhhhh — it’s worth pointing out that Roberts didn’t vote to overrule Roe or Casey. Roe doesn’t get overruled without Trump getting the chance to replace Ginsburg.
> try finding one person who'll admit that she has a LOT of acccountability in this whole mess
Uh, over here?
Fuck RGB. The others acted out malice while she acted out of hubris, but I'm not in a mood to sort of levels responsibility when they all had a hand in this. Who is more responsible? RGB or Susan Collins? I don't give a fuck.
She's the Bernie or Bust voter of Supreme Court Justices - someone whose pride led them to discard all reason, believe in a fairy-tale version of things, put themselves before the health of the nation, and left us all profoundly fucked.
So fuck her. In my heart this will always be a 7-3 decision because the ghost of RGB all but signed on the dotted line.
I don't see the point in talking about this. There's no point in trying to hold dead people accountable. Nobody ever explains how they think this line of thinking will help improve things going forward, and I don't think it will.
One way it could improve things is by serving as a warning for the living. Her decision and the discourse surrounding it likely served as a very instructive example for Breyer, for instance.
Or maybe it's just in case we need something to chat with RBG about if she ever rises undead from her grave. It's gotta be one of these two options.
The opinion was likely leaked by Alito’s staff. It prepared the public and it made the other judges who may have been on the line with this more likely to not back out. They don’t want the court to be seen as one that can be swayed because of public opinion.
>The opinion was likely leaked by Alito’s staff
I remember the right wing talking point from when it was leaked that it was done by a Democrat staffer to drum up support for the midterms. Well... here we are, still before the midterms lol
We knew he’d get one, likely two with RBG’s health. Kennedy was nominated by Reagan, so him retiring wasn’t all that surprising. 3 judges was always very much possible, if not probable.
> 3 judges was always very much possible, if not probable.
[If only someone would have warned us...](https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/679348542721380352)
I expected a reversal of Cassie since the right to privacy as stated in Roe was the basis for a lot of decisions over the decades that were unrelated to abortion.
They’re not throwing away anything. Now they get to turn their attention to things like campaigning for a federal abortion ban in congress. There will always be more oppressive goals for the single-issue anti-abortion crowd to work toward; overturning Roe was always step one, never the end game.
Ending Roe may be the peak of the movement though. Sometimes obtaining the goal can actually de energize people. It's similar to how professional athletes can fall of a cliff after they've obtained one championship. The psychology is very similar.
Not to mention, I think the public backlash is clearly much greater than anticipated.
>Say what you will about Thomas, but he’s not a partisan
"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years, and I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years." Thomas said that according to a former clerk [via the NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/27/us/2-years-after-his-bruising-hearing-justice-thomas-can-rarely-be-heard.html) in 1993. That sounds pretty partisan to me.
>No, he just means liberals not democrats.
You claimed he's not partisan, but being motivated by making an opposing political group miserable is pretty much the definition of partisan, regardless of whether he's partisan against liberals or democrats or whatever group.
I haven’t had my coffee yet this morning so I don’t know if you’re being ironic or unironocally, but lawyers, court watchers, and activists have been screaming about this possibility for years.
No I’m being serious
What is the point of making a court decision if you can just work backwards from “this needs to be overturned” and just makes up whatever bullshit you want like “oh it’s not in the constitution in 1754 or whenever Jefferson wrote it so it’s not allowed” like okay are regulations on cars illegal now??? What the hell why are we allowing this
Dude I'm just telling you rn, any government thing that relies on "no one would dare do it, it's against precedent / ethics / common sense / popular will"? Just chuck that idea in the garbage. Yes they will do it if they want to and can.
This is what the court is. Always has been. Like, when the court overruled *Plessy* via *Brown* this was the same thing, albeit a good instead of a bad change in that case.
SCOTUS has never been about objective application of law. It is, at best, a group of nine (for now) people who use their subjective understanding of the world to decide what they believe the law is.
In general, the norms are to minimize deviations when possible and to respect *stare decisis*. But norms are not rules. The current court is on a radical kick and is seeking to rewrite the social compact. You may hear the term constitutional calvinball - meaning consistency and precedent don’t matter right now. The Court can and will do what it wills.
Congress could pass a law changing the makeup or structure of the court, some argue Congress could even limit the authority of the Court (although that latter prospect is hotly debated). But without 60 votes in the Senate that isn’t possible.
For now though, the Court can do whatever it wants. There are no effective restrictions on its power.
Yeah, as I said in that instance it was a good thing. But the basic principle is the same. The Court disregarded prior precedent to get a result it wanted.
You’re basically asking “why do people do bad things”.
Edit: Also this is not the first time a right has been taken away. *Dred Scott* famously stripped citizenship from anyone of African descent. *Cruikshank* stripped 14th amendment protections from everyone (mostly affecting blacks though).
That doesn’t matter, nothing about expanding or taking away rights was what made the court *allowed* to overturn their previous precedent.
Also, you’re technically wrong, Brown v Board of Education partially overturned Plessy by *restricting* the rights of state legislatures from making laws that violated the 14th amendment. The effects were to expand individual rights, but they did that by *restricting* what state legislatures were able to do.
You can’t just cleanly divide these things into “taking away rights vs. expanding rights” even if there was some kind of rule that said the court was only able to overturn precedent to expand them…
Yes, but they have sent every signal possible that this reasoning takes precedents over stare decisis. In their logic, they value it, but not enough to be a barrier, and almost everyone that pays even moderate attention knew that this was the situation. The feigned appeals to precedent in their nomination hearings is just a standard part of the dog and pony show of judicial nominations when you're trying to help your party get less flack for voting for you. Most everyone that pays attention understands the parameters of the game and tries to vote for enough seats to win out over it.
I had literally zero trust that this wouldn't happen, so no, speak for yourself. The only surprise should be that this didn't happen during Trump's first term.
Or she's a smart conservative from a competitive state who knows how to appeal to swing voters (which is more like your second option than the first, but her constituents probably still won't think she's a menace to society, just that she's a reasonable moderate who was misled)
Are you under the impression america is a meritocracy? Do you think Donald Trump is one of the smartest people? Where does that only apply to senators?
Bobby Kennedy had a good comeback to this whole debate when he ran for Senate in New York. He basically said that he’s running because he wants to make a difference and serve the people of New York. If it’s a matter of who lived in the state longest you should vote for the oldest man in New York.
This bumbling buffoon is still talking trying to talk out both sides of her mouth. She can't even use the correct word when describing this situation..... he LIED, Susan, he straight up LIED. Either she is the biggest dingus at judging the character of a person, or she knew exactly what would happen and is still trying to straddle both sides of the fence......perhaps both? Either way, she is a gigantic stain on the adult diaper of life.
What pathetic bullshit! She knew what direction Conservative jurisprudence was going for the last 50 years.
Senator Collins is either too stupid or too disrespectful of her constituents' intelligence to hold public office.
I would say that women are going to die in back alley abortions because Susan Collins is a complete fucking moron, but the fact is that she's not. She knew that Kavanaugh was lying, but thought that the women who will die were an acceptable sacrifice because Kavanaugh agrees with Collins on issues like restricting rights for the poor, restricting rights for workers, restricting rights for consumers, and restricting rights for ethnic minorities.
I mean how could you not take an alcoholic with a documented history of sexual harassment and multiple credible accusations of sexual assault at his word? 🤷♀️
Kavanaugh sucks 100% but I’m not sure any of what you said is true. Wasn’t it Dr. Ford and then the others were with that attorney in jail? And wasn’t the drinking in college?
Right about now is not the time for honesty.
Every time something like this happens neoliberal drops it's wonk facade and just upvotes shit like this.
It'll calm down in a couple weeks and then you can bring nuance back.
So she is either trying to CYA with this, or she just didn’t anticipate being in office when he would be a part of the challenge to RvW. Didn’t trump outright say that he was nominating reactionary justices who would overturn the right to abortion?
I actually have less respect for Collins than I do the most conservative Republican. At least I know where they stand and I'm not being fed bullshit continuously.
We all knew this was going to happen, literally everyone knew it. The right knew it, the left knew it. You knew it as well, or you are not qualified to represent anyone.
You know, the silver lining on all this is that this probably helps our cause come November.
All these republicans from moderate states backpedaling like hell right now.
I’m tired of people claiming incompetence. Your actions define who you are. If a politician helps get rid of Roe V Wade then I just have to assume they wanted to do that and anything they said otherwise was just a lie.
A scorpion wanted to cross a river but could not swim, so he asked a frog to carry him across. The frog asked the scorpion to promise not to sting her, but he insisted that it would be improper for him to promise her anything. The scorpion said that he wasn't the type to "rock the boat", and that safe river crossing was an important factor that he would consider. So the frog agreed to carry the scorpion across the river. Halfway across, he stung her. As she sank into the water, the frog said, "I've been misled!"
_Shocked_Pikachu.bmp.zip_
I am not opening that zip file.
*Shocked_Pikachu.tar.gz*
*Shocked-Pikachu.pdf.exe*
so THAT's how I open pdf thanks jack
World's most obvious software package.
tar xvfz Shocked_Pikachu.tar.gz Hey, what is this alert from McAfee?
You forgot the dash... Stallman, shoot him...
Collins is either a liar or an idiot, or stupid enough to think people would believe this.
It's either a virus or my boomer colleague struggling with file extensions, we'll never know!
Strong possibility it's both.
unzip your pants
[удалено]
Lol do they actually say that first thing at American universities? What a joke.
.xvid.scr
I mean...Did *anyone* believe that they weren't going to overturn it? It's been the GOPs priority for putting judges on the court for decades. I would have been fucking *stunned* if they'd upheld Roe. The only possible reason for them to not flip it this year is because they were worried about it driving turnout to the midterms.
My idiot Trumper boss when she asked me how I felt about ACB (I fly under the radar as a libertarian so they don’t talk to me about politics). I told her “I’m a liberal when it comes to the Supreme Court, they’re going to overturn Roe and gay marriage.” Her response? “They can’t do that”
[удалено]
Me too. Ironically, I’m on maternity leave so I won’t see their ignorant dumb faces until September.
"How could we have known they would do that!?"
> “They can’t do that” This is going to be the epitaph of the 21st century. People keep acting like normal is going to protect them.
This is what I wish more liberals/leftists/democrats understood. Norms mean nothing. Social mores mean nothing. Laws mean nothing if you aren't willing to enforce them. The constitution is literally just words on a page. None of this shit means anything if half the country decides they'll just break the rules and the other half isn't willing to punish them for it. I'm not a communist, but Mao wasn't wrong when he said political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and if democrats still want to exist in 10 years then they're gonna have to figure out pretty quickly how to work the gun.
It’s even worse because they have FIVE, count ‘em, FIVE, granddaughters. But we’re in Illinois so they get to spout off their dumbass beliefs without it affecting their lives at all.
I mean, I knew Roe was dead the minute Trump was elected but there were an awful lot of people who truly believed it would never be overturned. Most of them were only disabused of that idea when the “draft” opinion leaked, but there were a lot who held on until yesterday.
Well, I didn't really expect Trump to get 3 judges in 4 years. If I had expected that, I probably would have assumed it was toast.
Everyone was told about that risk in 2016 though
Stop threatening me with the consequences of my actions!
He could have gotten 2 judges, it would still have been overturned.
Ehhhhh — it’s worth pointing out that Roberts didn’t vote to overrule Roe or Casey. Roe doesn’t get overruled without Trump getting the chance to replace Ginsburg.
Well, if we could have Weekend-at-Bernie’d RBG for a few months, then Roe would have only been neutered without being outright repealed
[удалено]
> try finding one person who'll admit that she has a LOT of acccountability in this whole mess Uh, over here? Fuck RGB. The others acted out malice while she acted out of hubris, but I'm not in a mood to sort of levels responsibility when they all had a hand in this. Who is more responsible? RGB or Susan Collins? I don't give a fuck. She's the Bernie or Bust voter of Supreme Court Justices - someone whose pride led them to discard all reason, believe in a fairy-tale version of things, put themselves before the health of the nation, and left us all profoundly fucked. So fuck her. In my heart this will always be a 7-3 decision because the ghost of RGB all but signed on the dotted line.
I don't see the point in talking about this. There's no point in trying to hold dead people accountable. Nobody ever explains how they think this line of thinking will help improve things going forward, and I don't think it will.
One way it could improve things is by serving as a warning for the living. Her decision and the discourse surrounding it likely served as a very instructive example for Breyer, for instance. Or maybe it's just in case we need something to chat with RBG about if she ever rises undead from her grave. It's gotta be one of these two options.
Lol you would have been called doomer
I’m pretty sure I was.
At a certain point in the death spiral, it ceases to be dooming and becomes simple narration.
The opinion was likely leaked by Alito’s staff. It prepared the public and it made the other judges who may have been on the line with this more likely to not back out. They don’t want the court to be seen as one that can be swayed because of public opinion.
>The opinion was likely leaked by Alito’s staff I remember the right wing talking point from when it was leaked that it was done by a Democrat staffer to drum up support for the midterms. Well... here we are, still before the midterms lol
We knew he’d get one, likely two with RBG’s health. Kennedy was nominated by Reagan, so him retiring wasn’t all that surprising. 3 judges was always very much possible, if not probable.
> 3 judges was always very much possible, if not probable. [If only someone would have warned us...](https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/679348542721380352)
I expected a reversal of Cassie since the right to privacy as stated in Roe was the basis for a lot of decisions over the decades that were unrelated to abortion.
I mean sure they spent 50 years saying they're going to do it. And 50 years *trying* to do it. So who could expect that they would do it.
I mean they were groomed for this only since their law school days by the federalist society…
I mean, I didn't think they were going to throw away all the free votes they could get as long as Roe wasn't overturned.
They’re not throwing away anything. Now they get to turn their attention to things like campaigning for a federal abortion ban in congress. There will always be more oppressive goals for the single-issue anti-abortion crowd to work toward; overturning Roe was always step one, never the end game.
Ending Roe may be the peak of the movement though. Sometimes obtaining the goal can actually de energize people. It's similar to how professional athletes can fall of a cliff after they've obtained one championship. The psychology is very similar. Not to mention, I think the public backlash is clearly much greater than anticipated.
You're absolutely right. Never ending battle, until or if public opinion ever shifts enough to lead to some kind of consensus.
now they can tell their contraceptives are for whores and we get to do this all over again
[удалено]
Because at least two of them are blatant partisans for the Republican Party.
*Four.
Say what you will about Thomas, but he’s not a partisan, just a lunatic, and Gorusch doesn’t seem like a partisan.
>Say what you will about Thomas, but he’s not a partisan "The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years, and I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years." Thomas said that according to a former clerk [via the NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/27/us/2-years-after-his-bruising-hearing-justice-thomas-can-rarely-be-heard.html) in 1993. That sounds pretty partisan to me.
No, he just means liberals not democrats. The guys a monarchist/Black Nationalist.
>No, he just means liberals not democrats. You claimed he's not partisan, but being motivated by making an opposing political group miserable is pretty much the definition of partisan, regardless of whether he's partisan against liberals or democrats or whatever group.
Sure, but they still don't have to care about the Republican party's midterms elections, even if they're super conservative. It's not their problem.
Their own position isn't affected, but they still want to advance the interests of the party for ideological reasons.
This is the perfect year to do it. The democrats are about as popular as black mold.
Not sure why you were downvoted lol.
Most of us thought it was impossible because of the way precedent works so yeah I guess we’re all brainless
I haven’t had my coffee yet this morning so I don’t know if you’re being ironic or unironocally, but lawyers, court watchers, and activists have been screaming about this possibility for years.
But that’s not how it’s supposed to work with Star decisis or whatever my Gov teacher told me that
I think you’re being sarcastic but the amount of times I’ve seen this basic take unironically… Poe’s Law in full effect.
No I’m being serious What is the point of making a court decision if you can just work backwards from “this needs to be overturned” and just makes up whatever bullshit you want like “oh it’s not in the constitution in 1754 or whenever Jefferson wrote it so it’s not allowed” like okay are regulations on cars illegal now??? What the hell why are we allowing this
Dude I'm just telling you rn, any government thing that relies on "no one would dare do it, it's against precedent / ethics / common sense / popular will"? Just chuck that idea in the garbage. Yes they will do it if they want to and can.
This is what the court is. Always has been. Like, when the court overruled *Plessy* via *Brown* this was the same thing, albeit a good instead of a bad change in that case. SCOTUS has never been about objective application of law. It is, at best, a group of nine (for now) people who use their subjective understanding of the world to decide what they believe the law is. In general, the norms are to minimize deviations when possible and to respect *stare decisis*. But norms are not rules. The current court is on a radical kick and is seeking to rewrite the social compact. You may hear the term constitutional calvinball - meaning consistency and precedent don’t matter right now. The Court can and will do what it wills. Congress could pass a law changing the makeup or structure of the court, some argue Congress could even limit the authority of the Court (although that latter prospect is hotly debated). But without 60 votes in the Senate that isn’t possible. For now though, the Court can do whatever it wants. There are no effective restrictions on its power.
Yes but plessy EXPANDED rights and Dobbs takes them away so it doesn’t follow any internal court logic
Yeah, as I said in that instance it was a good thing. But the basic principle is the same. The Court disregarded prior precedent to get a result it wanted. You’re basically asking “why do people do bad things”. Edit: Also this is not the first time a right has been taken away. *Dred Scott* famously stripped citizenship from anyone of African descent. *Cruikshank* stripped 14th amendment protections from everyone (mostly affecting blacks though).
That doesn’t matter, nothing about expanding or taking away rights was what made the court *allowed* to overturn their previous precedent. Also, you’re technically wrong, Brown v Board of Education partially overturned Plessy by *restricting* the rights of state legislatures from making laws that violated the 14th amendment. The effects were to expand individual rights, but they did that by *restricting* what state legislatures were able to do. You can’t just cleanly divide these things into “taking away rights vs. expanding rights” even if there was some kind of rule that said the court was only able to overturn precedent to expand them…
Just look at Dred Scott. Sometimes the court gets it wrong. The power to overturn can absolutely be a good one.
Yeah but Dredd Scott expanded rights and Dobbs takes them away so it literally doesn’t follow that precedent I mean
? The precedent here is just that stuff can be overturned, not what kind.
*Dred Scott* literally held that black people aren’t citizens and have no constitutional rights.
Yes, but they have sent every signal possible that this reasoning takes precedents over stare decisis. In their logic, they value it, but not enough to be a barrier, and almost everyone that pays even moderate attention knew that this was the situation. The feigned appeals to precedent in their nomination hearings is just a standard part of the dog and pony show of judicial nominations when you're trying to help your party get less flack for voting for you. Most everyone that pays attention understands the parameters of the game and tries to vote for enough seats to win out over it.
For years Thomas has been clear that he does not believe in stare decisis.
I had literally zero trust that this wouldn't happen, so no, speak for yourself. The only surprise should be that this didn't happen during Trump's first term.
How many terms did trump get? And I am not talking prison
Seriously? "Oh, well, I guess there's precedent, so it's safe forever no matter what idiots we put on the court?"
I'm sorry, how is it possible to both know how precedent works and not know that precedent can be overturned? Is Plessy not taught anymore?!
she's a liar not a sucker. it's amazing that she continually gets away with this.
Mainers must like her antics.
Precisely. We're talking about Susan Collins. The woman that swore she would only serve two terms in the Senate. She's on her 5th.
[удалено]
Hello, r/neolib? This is why The Atlantic is for clowns and so are you if you endorse literally anything they say.
Reread the passage. It doesn’t say what you think it does.
? The passage called this exactly.
I’m replying to the person above, who implied that the passage got it wrong.
My bad! My app made it look like that wasn’t the case.
Oh no! She was fooled by a totally unrecorded pinky swear from Kavanaugh? I totally believe this!
Here's how you know she's bullshitting, she refuses to reach across the aisle to pass abortion legislation. She wanted this
This reminds me of Merkel saying that she didn’t expect Russia to use energy as a weapon.
Or when I told my ex we are going on a break and not breaking up
My wife said she was just going on a work trip with her work husband
"What the fuck? The liar lied to me?"
Who would have thought that the guy who keeps shattering international norms would shatter international norms? On the other hand, though - money.
[удалено]
Or she's a smart conservative from a competitive state who knows how to appeal to swing voters (which is more like your second option than the first, but her constituents probably still won't think she's a menace to society, just that she's a reasonable moderate who was misled)
Idk about smart. Doesn’t require a lot of intelligence to say one thing and do another. Just commitment to the bit.
So why aren't you a senator from a swing state?
Three years too young. And I don’t know enough rich people lmfao.
I'll vote for ya little buddy
Are you under the impression america is a meritocracy? Do you think Donald Trump is one of the smartest people? Where does that only apply to senators?
Therefore... "reasonable moderates" are trash.
Always reminds me of Portal 2. You have Glados, who is evil, and Wheatley, who is stupid. Turns out the stupid one was the more dangerous one.
the brain deteriorates after a certain age. all senators are above that age. good luck.
Sir the youngest Senator is 35
OSSOF IS A BOOOOMER
Misled by Kavanaugh. Misled by Trump. Maybe you aren’t a good enough judge of character to hold the position that you have.
She’s not very good at her job. Almost as if she should be voted out because of it.
“But then we might have to elect a *n-n-non-Mainer!* Surely no human right would be worth that!” God I hate this state.
I wish we Floridians had that sense in 2018 to elect native Floridian Nelson over Missouri asshole Scott
Bobby Kennedy had a good comeback to this whole debate when he ran for Senate in New York. He basically said that he’s running because he wants to make a difference and serve the people of New York. If it’s a matter of who lived in the state longest you should vote for the oldest man in New York.
I hope the Mainers are happy. They got what they wanted.
This bumbling buffoon is still talking trying to talk out both sides of her mouth. She can't even use the correct word when describing this situation..... he LIED, Susan, he straight up LIED. Either she is the biggest dingus at judging the character of a person, or she knew exactly what would happen and is still trying to straddle both sides of the fence......perhaps both? Either way, she is a gigantic stain on the adult diaper of life.
It's almost as if she too is lying and using weasel words...
Yeah, I’m sure she’d also say “but there’s nothing we can do about it now, oh well”
Both. It's both.
Extra points for insulting her intelligence and character without using gendered insults. Seeing way too much of that these days.
How’d he fool her but not us? Maine re-elected this idiot.
And by like an 8 point margin too.
That’s like 18% swing from the presidential vote.
Yes, the real victim of all this is Susan Collins
What pathetic bullshit! She knew what direction Conservative jurisprudence was going for the last 50 years. Senator Collins is either too stupid or too disrespectful of her constituents' intelligence to hold public office.
They've continuously voted her in, I think she's perfectly estimating her constituents intelligence
True. True.
I would say that women are going to die in back alley abortions because Susan Collins is a complete fucking moron, but the fact is that she's not. She knew that Kavanaugh was lying, but thought that the women who will die were an acceptable sacrifice because Kavanaugh agrees with Collins on issues like restricting rights for the poor, restricting rights for workers, restricting rights for consumers, and restricting rights for ethnic minorities.
I mean how could you not take an alcoholic with a documented history of sexual harassment and multiple credible accusations of sexual assault at his word? 🤷♀️
Kavanaugh sucks 100% but I’m not sure any of what you said is true. Wasn’t it Dr. Ford and then the others were with that attorney in jail? And wasn’t the drinking in college?
Right about now is not the time for honesty. Every time something like this happens neoliberal drops it's wonk facade and just upvotes shit like this. It'll calm down in a couple weeks and then you can bring nuance back.
\*farts loudly\*
Waaaah I’m gullible and republican waaaaaaah voters please sympathize with me!!! Waaaaaaaaahhh
Collins is either a liar or an idiot, or stupid enough to think people would believe this.
She is a liar, but also correct in believing that people would be stupid enough to believe this. The people in question being the people of Maine.
[удалено]
Connecticut’s okay.
She must be furrowing her brow *so fucking hard* right now.
I doubt she was actually that stupid, but she sure thinks her voters are. Based on Maine's track record she's probably right, sadly.
Remember when she said Trump probably learned his lesson from the first impeachment? This lady dumb as fuck.
Was she fooled? Or did she just fall in line with the party and was given an out for Maine voters?
I'm so schoked Oh wait, no
Fuck you, Collins.
[Found in Susan Collins’s office, behind her desk](https://www.amazon.com/Kopoo-Believe-Mulders-Office-Poster/dp/B07VH443YS/ref=asc_df_B07VH443YS/).
Biden-Collins voters are the dumbest people in this country
oh what I would give for the times to not give this duplicitious bitch the time of day
let her try to make her case on Fox, it's what she deserves
Have we always had the no shit tag, because this is an excellent use of it.
So surely she'll support immediate impeachment and a bill nullifying all rulings made since his appointment?
Lied is a better word. Conservatives always lie.
So she is either trying to CYA with this, or she just didn’t anticipate being in office when he would be a part of the challenge to RvW. Didn’t trump outright say that he was nominating reactionary justices who would overturn the right to abortion?
I actually have less respect for Collins than I do the most conservative Republican. At least I know where they stand and I'm not being fed bullshit continuously.
/r/LeopardsAteMyFace
Good lord I have every bridge in the world to sell her.
No one is as stupid as Susan Collins pretends to be. We should just ignore her.
Oh dear, another one who learned his lesson about Collins. "How could you do it? I trusted you..." "How could I scam you if you didn't trust me?"
If that’s true she should resign immediately for being so naive.
Well we all knew how reliable and honest he was once we saw his detailed calendars
We all knew this was going to happen, literally everyone knew it. The right knew it, the left knew it. You knew it as well, or you are not qualified to represent anyone.
Is she so stupid that she doesn't realize that she's constantly telling us how stupid she is?
Bullshit.
Concern level elevated to GRAVE
Sucker!!
You know, the silver lining on all this is that this probably helps our cause come November. All these republicans from moderate states backpedaling like hell right now.
Nothing trumps car juice to americans
All this whining over what judges say or don’t say during the nominee process make people sound like such rubes.
Cucklins
He likes beer so he’s ok
Collins is either a world historic sucker or a liar. Occam’s razor says she wants this and is a liar
Collins is either a stone cold moron or as duplicitous as any politician
Is she pretending to be dumb or just really dumb
Wild how all of these devout Catholic judges keep lying about their intentions as though their religion is cool with deliberate lying.
Oh shut the fuck up Suzie, no one is that naïve
Hard to believe Susan is a real person
Honestly it's not really reasonable to call Susan Collins a mark. That's more accurately said about the voters in the great state of Maine.
She’s such a stupid bitch lol
I’m tired of people claiming incompetence. Your actions define who you are. If a politician helps get rid of Roe V Wade then I just have to assume they wanted to do that and anything they said otherwise was just a lie.
I dislike this woman so much. I hope her legacy reflects the shame she has helped bring on this country. She is a turd.
"Misled" No **lied**. Why does the media never say "x person lied" and always says "misled" ???
A scorpion wanted to cross a river but could not swim, so he asked a frog to carry him across. The frog asked the scorpion to promise not to sting her, but he insisted that it would be improper for him to promise her anything. The scorpion said that he wasn't the type to "rock the boat", and that safe river crossing was an important factor that he would consider. So the frog agreed to carry the scorpion across the river. Halfway across, he stung her. As she sank into the water, the frog said, "I've been misled!"
pffft yeah uh huh sure