Susan Collins speach on the Senate floor is phenomenal. I listened to it live and a second time today. For 40 minutes, she explains that many of the left's concerns regarding Kavanaugh are unwarranted

#selloutSusan delivers again! Another republican without a moral fiber in their entire body.

She gave a great speech with clear reasoning for her decision. There is room to disagree with her on particular points, but what I most appreciate is her commitment to explaining her logic in a compelling fashion.

I would encourage those on this thread who disagree with her not to attack her personal motives (which is intellectual cowardice in my opinion), but rather to point out where you see flaws in her reasoning.

@VP1 - she brings up many valid points, I recommend you listen to it. She touches upon Brett's views and prior rulings on presidential power, on contraception, and on abortion and explains that he has expressed and acted upon previously an opinion that precedent is the law of the land barring an extraordinary circumstance such as Brown v. Board overturning Plessy v. Ferguson.

She brings up valid points in saying that special interest groups and Democrats announced their opposition to Trump's nominee before he was identified and that this has been an exercise in partisan division by the Democrats from the very second this nomination began.

She says we cannot be a country that abandons the presumption of innocence. She rightly says that there is simply no evidence that Brett Kavanaugh committed sexual assault and there is actually more evidence that it didn't happen.

I’m learning OP that people such as yourself can not be persuaded. So, I guess we’ll see how his judgments go. I hope you’re right, but I fear you’re wrong. Kavanauh’s outburst last week was the diatribe of a party operative, not an impartial judge.

I just don’t understand why she was talking about these weird things like “Marbury v. Madison”. How is that relevant? She didn’t ONCE mention how much beer he drank. What a disgrace. #ImpeachCollins

Focusing on actual case law is above the reading level of many. Joy Behar told me he is going to overturn Roe v Wade so he is going to.

Susan Collins’s speech was excellent. 🇺🇸

This whole hearing was a political circus and a good man’s name tarnished because of some baseless, specious claims. Kavanaugh was treated poorly and unfairly. I

Sorry, but the man that paved the way for Citizens United (Emily's List vs. FEC ruling) and his written views that Roe isn't settled are why Dems came out against him early. Not to mention his completely partisan testimony at the last hearing should disqualify him immediately. We should be expecting more from our judges.

Dems just thought pretty credible claims of sexual assault would be a reason Republicans might ignore their partisanship. Aka it was just MORE reason to not nominate him.

And considering the FBI did not interview Ford or Kavanaugh for this investigation, not to mention not interviewing the many materials witnesses that have come forward to testify that Kavanaugh lied under oath to the judiciary in the last hearing - this investigation is a sham and some half-hearted attempt at a panacea.

They just told every sexual assault victim that you shouldn't come forward, it's not worth it, because they will just find ways to discredit you and back the attacker anyways.

My heart goes out to Dr. Ford. She wasn't treated fairly in this at all.

Also, can we drop the BS 11th hour narrative? Dr. Ford already explained the timing of the issue in her testimony. Feinstein was just trying to adhere to Ford's wishes.

Why does race have anything to do with it? This was an accusation by a whit woman against a white man. Playing the evil white card is such a weak argument.

I’ve never been one for reverse racism but it is actually starting to get irritating. The phrase “white man” is essentially a synonym for evil and oppression.

@KPMG if you actually listened, she explained that Kavanaugh considers Marbury one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions in history, a case in which Supreme Court justices ruled against the president that nominated them. She brings this up to dissipate the concern that BK would never rule against Donald Trump and is a hyperpartisan.

Op, I find it bizarre that you’re so convinced by this lady and not at all perturbed by the unstable and deeply partisan testimony from the man himself . She is not going to be the judge , she is just hoping to escape any backlash from her voters.

@EY1 he has every right to frustration. The democrats clearly designed this process (i.e. Releasing this accusation at the 11th hour rather than when they received it) to be as politically destructive as possible.

Look not to one moment of a man pushed to the limits of human stress, but rather to 12 YEARS of judicial work where he was in the majority of 98% of cases he decided and ruled the same as Merrick Garland (a "liberal") 93% of the time.

The democrats have tried and failed to paint this man as a partisan, when the 12 years of evidence of his work clearly and definitively shows he is not. He even ruled against Bush, who appointed him to the court of appeals.

"Credible claims" and "temperament" are the leftist talking points. Neither are legitimate, or effective, but they have the marching orders.

Funny how "temperament" gets used against women to discredit them on a regular basis, but a white man in power gives a clearly angry and biased testimony (when the literal job requires even temperment and non-partisanship) we just ignore it.

The standards are not the same for men and women, and this is just another example.

She would buy a wooden nickel from pretty much any snake oil salesman who called himself republican.

His JUDICIAL job duties require non-biased temperament. Which he has shown for on his 12 year record on the bench.

Getting angry about false gang rape accusations? When they clearly are part of a democratic narrative? Doesn’t bother me too much. The timeline 100% supports a democratic “hit job” of sorts. They sat on the allegation for almost 2 months, then it mysteriously leaks right before the vote. She wanted to stay private, but went ahead and took a polygraph in August. Her social media and online presence was fully scrubbed. Give me a break

Personally I think it’s a problem that we have some how imparted on the younger generations that being a white male is something to be ashamed of. Big firms have special programs and groups for basically everyone other than white males.

@deloitte 1 why is it that no one in opposition to Kavanaugh discusses his judicial history AKA his record of his views? Likely because that would eliminate most of the arguments against him

@SD1 if you don't think there were political motivations in the timing of the accusations being released you're fooling yourself

I’m not a white man and I’m quite happy!