Image 01 Image 03

Sen. Susan Collins is a YES on Kavanaugh

Sen. Susan Collins is a YES on Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh likely to be confirmed on Saturday, though anything could happen between then and now.

(Updated by WAJ)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) voted to invoke cloture on the debate on Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh this morning.

In one of the most extraordinarily intelligent and thoughtful speeches I’ve ever heard from the Senate floor or elsewhere, Collins announced that she would vote in favor of Kavanaugh.

Here’s Collins’ almost 45 minute speech (prepared text of speech here)



Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) told reporters he is a yes on Kavanaugh unless new developments emerge.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL) didn’t flat out said no, but she leads you to believe it’s a no from her in a statement she gave after she voted no on cloture.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) voted yes on cloture, but we still don’t know how he will vote tomorrow.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram provided these 5 scenarios:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Am here in downtown DC where I was just behind a white guy in a pulled-up gray hoodie who placed an order for 25 beer kegs to be delivered to the US Senate tomorrow evening.

    RodFC in reply to pfg. | October 5, 2018 at 3:16 pm

    Yeah but which side is he trolling?

      Tiki in reply to RodFC. | October 5, 2018 at 5:13 pm

      This speech would’ve meant something if delivered two weeks ago. But Susan is a political beast, checking and rechecking the political trade-winds. The welfare of her barque being the only consideration here. And only now, at the 11th hour, when she find the climate favorable, and deems it safe, she less-than-boldly weighs anchor.

      Breaking News!

      Susan Collins grandstands and gets showered with praise.

    fscarn in reply to pfg. | October 5, 2018 at 3:25 pm

    Hey, Susie, get to it. Yes or no? Apparently this is her Drama Queen Moment and she’s gonna milk it for all it’s got.

      Valerie in reply to fscarn. | October 5, 2018 at 5:16 pm

      If you can’t be bothered to listen to a thoughtful and thorough speech on a serious issue, please reconsider voting. And please have a very large cup of STFU.

        Anonamom in reply to Valerie. | October 5, 2018 at 5:21 pm

        Or maybe others don’t see it your way? Where you see a “thoughtful and thorough speech,” perhaps others see opportunistic political grandstanding? Are those people then entitled to tell you to “STFU”?

          Tiki in reply to Anonamom. | October 5, 2018 at 5:35 pm

          Its like Churchill delivering his “We Shall Fight on the Beaches” speech in 1946 instead of 1940.

          Too little, too late.

          txvet2 in reply to Anonamom. | October 5, 2018 at 5:40 pm

          Anybody has the right to tell anybody to STFU. They also have the obligation to deal with the fallout.

        Tiki in reply to Valerie. | October 5, 2018 at 6:16 pm

        Lindsey Graham seized the fallen banner when our republic literally needed a champion. It was his (and our) cultural Agincourt moment.

        Meanwhile, Susan Collins arrives late to the victorious battlefield, strikes her most courtly Falstaffian pose, and plunges a dagger into the heart of a mortally wounded foe.

        A bit of overheated rhetoric on my part, but this is the internet!

        bour3 in reply to Valerie. | October 6, 2018 at 7:10 am

        You can read in three minutes.
        What takes Susan Collins an hour to say.

        Characterized as historic, it’s actually not that interesting.

        So I drew her picture instead.

DouglasJBender | October 5, 2018 at 2:53 pm

See if you can find him and ask him to send two root beer kegs to my address here in Elkhart.

The three Senators that are the focus of all this brouhaha are really getting off on it, aren’t they?

    Miles in reply to johlt. | October 5, 2018 at 4:53 pm

    Being the center of attention has always been attractive.

    ZZ Top’s “I’m Ba-aaad, I’m Nationwide.” comes to mind

Based on her opening sentences, she’s a yes – but she could be doing a McCain.

Predicted it last week when they announced the delay. 49-51 against with Manchin voting Yes without changing the outcome so he has cover for his re-election.

Hope the RINO’s are happy with their write-in campaign for Murkowski.

And Flake is just setting up his usual weasel move by adding the qualifier ‘unless something changes’, so he can make a grand speech about ‘principles’ before voting NO.

He’s going to claim something changed and vote no. He never had any intention of voting for Kavanaugh, he’s doing this to screw Trump and get a high paying gig for CNN or MSNBC.

    Tom Servo in reply to Olinser. | October 5, 2018 at 4:04 pm

    About the only thing that has changed in the last couple of days is that a Democrat staffer started sending out GOP Senator’s personal info and threatened to release their children’s medical records, which infuriated the Senators to a point where we’ve never seen them before. They don’t care about us out here in flyover land getting our records doxxed, but when that miss starts to hit home they go on the warpath!

Sounds like a “yes.”

Collins is providing her rationale, citing Kavanaugh’s testimony before the committee. Big focus on presidential power and independence.

She mentions that Kavanaugh cited Brown v. Board of Education as the “greatest” SCOTUS decision of all time.

This is sounding positive so far (collins speech).. please don’t make me reply how wrong I was and tell us you’re voting yes.

It’s brilliant, actually. Massive credit to Collins.

She’s actually focusing on Kavanaugh’s legal and jurisprudential chops and philosophy, not this ridiculous Stalinist accusation and show trial.

    Close The Fed in reply to guyjones. | October 5, 2018 at 6:43 pm

    With all due respect, the more I hear about his judicial qualifications, the less I like him. She praised his dissent upholding Obamacare and believed him that he believes precedents RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THE CONSTITUTION.

    We get to have decades more of vivisection of live babies. Not a win. More Obamacare. Not a win. More Wickard v. Filburn. Not a win.

      guyjones in reply to Close The Fed. | October 5, 2018 at 11:12 pm

      Well, with respect to the whole “Kavanaugh believes that precedent is enshrined in the Constitution” bit, I think that Collins is misinterpreting Kavanaugh’s philosophy.

      Look — at the end of the day, you’re getting a first-class, textualist judge who believes in judicial modesty, restraint and a judiciary that doesn’t act as a bunch of super-legislators.

      Just imagine how many complaints you’d have if crone Hillary was nominating a judge, in Trump’s place. Let’s be appropriately grateful for the situation at hand.

      Kavanaugh cannot guarantee you or anyone else specific rulings on specific issues — it simply wouldn’t be fair to the litigants, and, it would violate notions of judicial impartiality and fairness.

Collins is getting emotional, talking about the importance of the Presumption of Innocence, including what she called the “outlandish” accusation that Kavanaugh was an alleged teen gang rapist.

Whatever happens, it will be whisker-thin.

This whole episode is an historic disgrace.

It would not take me near this long to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. And I have a bit of a drawl.

Isn’t there a time limit?

She’s using all of it. Keep Dem crybabies in their seats for as long as possible.

Collins proffered a staunch defense of Feinstein, rejecting the supposition that she was the alleged leaker of Ford’s letter — based on no evidence, of course; merely her friendship with Feinstein.

So, Collins basically pointed the finger at the staff of the California Representative who was the only other recipient of the letter.

    Valerie in reply to guyjones. | October 5, 2018 at 5:34 pm

    There are other possibilities, because there are other people who had a copy of the letter. Ford is represented by counsel, and they are not members of either staff. There is also the former FBI agents she was visiting when she wrote the letter.

Colonel Travis | October 5, 2018 at 3:50 pm

Will she finish her speech before the 4th MLB playoff game of the day is over?

Colonel Travis | October 5, 2018 at 3:51 pm

Eat it, Democrats.

    They’ve lost the legislature, the executive, and now the court. Maybe we can right the ship now.

      txvet2 in reply to JDmyrm. | October 5, 2018 at 4:04 pm

      As Collins made clear with her enumeration of Kavanaugh’s decisions (and other statements), that may not be accurate. He is not a conservative, although he claims to be a constitutionalist. He may very well be an exact replica of Kennedy – a swing vote.

        Tom Servo in reply to txvet2. | October 5, 2018 at 4:26 pm

        Not after the way he was treated here, he won’t be. It’s amazing how the progs are so good at creating the enemies that they picture in their fevered minds.

        I think Donald Trump had the potential to be quite left leaning in many ways, but he’s a lifelong counterpuncher, and an old-school politician of the mold that modern types seem to have forgotten about. By which I mean he doesn’t have strong opinions of his own (that’s the contrast with Reagan, who did) but he believes in Loyalty over everything else. Hence, he fights as hard as he can for the people who support him, and he fights like hell against those people who oppose him.

        He didn’t start off being the Progressives worst enemy and the Evangelicals best friend – I doubt he ever imagined him doing that. But one of them poured all the hatred on him they could, no matter what he did, and the other gave him all of the support and comfort they could. And now look at how things have turned out.

        I’m not saying that Kavanaugh’s reaction will be as extreme, but it denies human nature to think that any man who’s been attacked like he has is going to give up the opportunity to extract some retribution whenever he can.

          txvet2 in reply to Tom Servo. | October 5, 2018 at 5:14 pm

          I think it’s a big mistake to conflate Kavanaugh with Trump. They’re two entirely different personalities, and to expect him to act like Trump would (and has) under the same or similar circumstances is to disregard that difference. Of course, we won’t know that until the really controversial cases come up.

          CincyJan in reply to Tom Servo. | October 6, 2018 at 12:00 am

          Great analysis of Trump. You are probably right, although I had not thought of it. I voted for Trump because I admired his courage in speaking off the cuff and unafraid. I also thought him smart, despite slips in demeanor during an almost non-stop campaign. And I wanted the Supreme Court back. You never know with justices – just as Henry II was mistaken about Thomas a’ Becket. Sadly, the President does not have Henry II’s solution to the problem. Nice of the left to harden his stance – if they did.

        fishstick in reply to txvet2. | October 5, 2018 at 4:45 pm

        Kavanaugh was the safest bet for less government overreach in the future

        any current government overreach won’t likely be ever overturned by the current Supreme Court (like Roe vs Wade or gay marriage), even with Kavanaugh (freshly slandered by the Left) on the bench

        the only thing in Roe vs Wade that could be altered is removing state funded abortions

        that’s about it

        gay marriage isn’t going away – it can only get altered in a specific manner like Catholic churches are exempted from marrying gay people and cases like the gay wedding cake ruling going in favor of those practicing religious beliefs

        what Brett Kavanaugh does on the Supreme Court is stop future rulings from being twisted to suit a leftist bias

        like the ACA rulings

          txvet2 in reply to fishstick. | October 5, 2018 at 5:18 pm

          The one comment she made in that regard that really bothered me was her recitation of his view on the “gay wedding” case. He was NOT in favor of the court’s decision, if I understood her correctly, and when commenting on it, announced his support for at least part of the gay agenda. That’s a big concern.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Colonel Travis. | October 5, 2018 at 3:54 pm

    Early to celebrate….Flake is not officially a yes until he can no longer flake out on it.

      clintack in reply to healthguyfsu. | October 5, 2018 at 4:04 pm

      I would totally agree — except Manchin just announced he’s a Yes.

      Flake is officially irrelevant. He can vote No out of spite and make Pence drive across town, or he can vote Yes and burn fewer bridges.

it’s a YES! We have enough with the VP.

That’s a real smile and she looks relieved. She is clearly voting her conscience.

    Tom Servo in reply to elle. | October 5, 2018 at 4:29 pm

    I think it’s a sign that she’s relieved that it’s over. You can’t convince that there’s anyone in the US Senate who has a thing that could be called a “Conscience”.


If that’s not a conflict of interest I don’t know what is? Was he really stupid enough to invoke Merrick Garland? He must know how over it is for his fake client.

Only a moderate Republican would wobble and warble to get to what has to be the right outcome. She flopped over the finish line on the side of Decency and avoided the Trash by her skirt hem.

Collins may be the new “voice of the Senate”. The “Lioness of the Senate?”

Surprisingly good speech.

Just an absolutely fabulous speech!

I hope this question does not cause anyone to spray their half chewed food and drink everywhere, but are there any Ds likely to vote yes? They can’t all be that stupid.

    You have to think at least one of them would realize what a damning vote this is.

    fishstick in reply to broomhandle. | October 5, 2018 at 4:33 pm

    the only Democrat that will vote yes is Joe Manchin

    he’s up for re-election in West Virginia, a state Trump won by like 30

    so yeah – he was always hoping this vote would never have happened

We win. Way to go President Trump.!!!!

She made a lot of good points, among them a few that conservatives and other Republicans have been ignoring during the confirmation process. Maybe the most important was the fact that Garland and Kavanaugh were in virtually unanimous agreement on opinions written by Kavanaugh for the appeals court. That does not a conservative make.

    fishstick in reply to txvet2. | October 5, 2018 at 4:28 pm

    (taking a page out of Democrats’s playbook)

    Judge Merrick Garland was never entitled for confirmation

    you need the Senate to confirm and if said body does not want to confirm or even hold a vote, then they are well within their rights afforded by the Constitution to leave a Supreme Court seat open should a President nominate someone they do not agree with

    but the funny thing is – the Democrats only have themselves to blame for politicizing the courts in the first place

    Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and now Brett Kavanaugh

    no one on the Left has any right to complain about any partisan crap from the Right after all their antics on the Senate floor against Republican nominees

    when the Democrats start acting like responsible adults – then the Republicans can extend the hand of respectful dialogue

    I hope to high heaven that should another Democrat ever win a presidency with a Republican controlled Senate – every R-Senator votes NO on every nomination that President makes (including Cabinet)

    give these commie bastards a taste of what it is really like facing stonecold and united opposition

    and maybe then the Democrats will grow up

      txvet2 in reply to fishstick. | October 5, 2018 at 5:21 pm

      You don’t appear to have understood my point. I’m not arguing that Garland should have been treated any differently. I’m pointing out to those who have calling Kavanaugh a conservative that he and Kavanaugh appear to be ideologically similar – “moderates”.

        CincyJan in reply to txvet2. | October 6, 2018 at 12:07 am

        I noticed that, too. We can only hope for the best. Possibly, this experience will have hardened Kavanaiugh’s outlook. Wish there were another Scalia in the wings.

    Colonel Travis in reply to txvet2. | October 5, 2018 at 4:38 pm

    Lower court judges do not set precedents, they follow them. Looking at his matches with Garland doesn’t say much except that they were at times properly deferential to SCOTUS, which is a good thing. They aren’t going off on their own like the irresponsible 9th circuit. I’m not arguing that I want Garland on the court. I’m arguing that just because they agree on the lower court doesn’t mean Kavanaugh has the same judicial philosophy as Garland. That’s not the case.

    Also, most SCOTUS cases are not 5-4. Most SCOTUS cases have solid majorities. A few years ago, the NYT posted a chart about how often Justices vote the same. RGB voted with Scalia 70% of the time, for example. So just because justices vote with one another doesn’t mean cats are lying down with dogs. It means most cases simply aren’t partisan – another good thing.

    I’ve read some of Kavanaugh’s opinions, I’ve heard him speak about his judicial philosophy. There is nothing in his background as a judge that leads me to believe he would be an activist or even another Kennedy. He has had a strong record of following the law and believes in (his words): “limiting the Court’s role in the realm of social policy.”

    Who’s talked about his judicial philosophy? Basically no one because the focus of our ignorant, leftist media and (D) party has been on nonsense like his high school freaking yearbook.

      “”Who’s talked about his judicial philosophy? Basically no one because the focus of our ignorant, leftist media and (D) party has been on nonsense like his high school freaking yearbook.””

      Yeah, that’s kind of my point. People has assumed he’s a conservative because Trump nominated him. My view has always been that he was nominated because he was the safest choice (as if that mattered in the end), not the most conservative.

      Of course you’re (generally) right about subordinate courts, although the reason some cases get to SCOTUS is because the courts DIDN’T follow precedent. And, of course, I don’t disagree that most cases are not controversial. They aren’t the ones that count. His impact on the court will be determined by the ones that ARE controversial, and that’s when we’ll see exactly who Kavanaugh really is.

        Colonel Travis in reply to txvet2. | October 5, 2018 at 6:09 pm

        Well, yes, we won’t know until we know. But:

        1.) If Kavanaugh were such a wildcard, why did the (D) party go ape-shit trying to derail him?

        2.) His record is thorough enough that we know for a fact he won’t be like, say, Souter, who had basically no record as a judge when he was nominated but people pretended he was rock solid. They were talking out of the rear back then. (I’m not saying you’re saying that, just using it as an example.) I also think Kavanaugh’s record is thorough to not think he’ll be a squish like Kennedy.

        If you haven’t seen this, check out this speech Kavanaugh made at the Heritage Foundation last year. I don’t think there is a better summation of his POV.

          You know why they went crazy. 1) He’s Trump’s nominee. 2) They think that they can take over the Senate in November and force Trump to nominate somebody more to their liking (and I don’t mean Garland). 3) He’s Trump’s nominee. 4) They’re setting up the conditions for each and every nominee for any post, but especially for another SCOTUS nominee, to warn them what will happen if they accept. 5) He’s Trump’s nominee.

          Oh yeah, I forgot. 6) While he was in limbo and the court was in session, any 4-4 division would affirm the decision of the next lower court – including the 9th. And last, but not least, 7) He’s Trump’s nominee.

          Anonamom in reply to Colonel Travis. | October 6, 2018 at 9:41 am

          If I recall correctly, the Dems went bananas over Souter, as well. Yes, SOUTER. The next nominee could be Merrick Garland and they’d still go nuts.

Daines messes everything up. Which one of them is going to be the ahole who makes him fly back from his daughter’s wedding just to vote? We’re not talking Profiles in Courage material, here—nobody will want to run the risk of being “that jerk” except maybe Flake, who won’t have to endure the social-club consequences since he won’t be there.

Can anyone ID the two women in the background in that photo? The one on the right might be either McCaskill (D-MO) or Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS).

Never send coat hangers to Sen. Collins, or make a million-dollar extortion threat against her.

Is the Senator from Montana still going to be there to vote?
I’d feel much better if we have his vote in case Flake whimps out.

    elle in reply to lc. | October 5, 2018 at 4:23 pm

    Me too!

    ecreegan in reply to lc. | October 5, 2018 at 4:24 pm

    Senator Daines will be at his daughter’s wedding BUT has promised to fly back immediately afterwards if necessary (private plane owned by Congressman Gianforte, R-Montana) and McConnell has already agreed to hold the vote open if necessary.

    So if Collins *or* Manchin change their mind, Daines will miss his daughter’s wedding reception, Gianforte will have to pay for some plane fuel, McConnell will miss a night of sleep, and Pence will drive across town break the tie.

      elle in reply to ecreegan. | October 5, 2018 at 4:38 pm

      Good move, Mitch. Now if ANYONE Of the 51 (just in case there is a corrupted one we aren’t expecting) tries to pull a McCain, that person will shamed as a real jerk who unnecessarily ruined a wedding rather than a brave hero.

      And more importantly, the vote is open, so they all have to vote FIRST, so no surprise betrayal by one person at the the veeerry last second. Bwahahaha.


I’ll believe it when the vote is taken.

Thank You Harry Reid!!!

    elle in reply to Elzorro. | October 5, 2018 at 4:45 pm

    Yes! Correct! To Harry! Hear! Hear!

    I had posted on another site the delicious irony that this fiasco for the Democrats rests squarely on the weasel-like shoulders of smarmy former Maj. Leader Harry Reid during the Gorsuch confirmation. Then, thinking that I had stumbled upon some great original thought, I read a tweet by Byron York several days earlier making the same point. Oh well, let the professionals be professionals . . .

    CincyJan in reply to Elzorro. | October 6, 2018 at 12:11 am

    Harry Reid was vile.

There were some good parts of the speech, but boy did that go on and on. And backing up Feinstein’s denial about letting the letter slip out, heh. But at least she’s voting the right way. There shouldn’t have been a question in the first place with the ridiculousness of the accusations against Kavanaugh. Now I just hope this drives him further toward a conservative view.

They made a big mistake when they threatened her, after that she couldn’t let them win.

Grahm and Collins, who would have thunk it.

I would love to see Murkowski stripped of her committee assignments and her office moved to a storage closet.

Carl Paulus
Collins basically defending the foundation of western civilization and the legal system on the Senate floor.”

Yes, and liberals will never forgive her for it. I’ve seen some of their other reactions… ones I’ll refrain from spreading around. Suffice to say that believing someone suffered trauma, but not believing her story, isn’t allowed.

That’s too bad, because it puts us right back in the grip of the recovered memories moral panic.

Watch the flames set in D.C. after he’s confirmed. They will try and burn the place to the ground. Time to call out the ARMY, the water cannons & dogs.


There’s a difference between free speech, petitioning and protesting to address grievances – and terroristic hooliganism.

Strange, how in 8 years of absolute torture under BHO – WE NEVER ACTED REMOTELY THIS WAY. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

I sense Trump’s hand in the staging of the response of the Republicans to the accusations against Kavanaugh.

For example, revealing what Rachel Mitchell’s questions were geared for (perjury trapping) only after Ford had concluded her testimony. Then, the refutations of Ford’s testimony begin steadily being released, because Mitchell got Ford on record.

Trump’s “mocking” of Ford during a rally, which wasn’t mocking so much as forcing the American press to cover the ex-boyfriends sworn statement contradicting Ford’s statements and the nature of Ford’s responses.

However, the most brilliant of the GOP maneuvers was this one. The American press was on pins-and-needles waiting for Collins to say how she would vote. Then, before she does, she gives one of the most epic, erudite take-downs of the progressive’s talking points and derides the stunt her Democratic colleagues pulled…and the American media was covering her speech in full…everywhere.

There are a bunch of Democrats who listened to Collins’ speech today that now realize the extent to which they have been lied to by their leadership. I suspect the “enthusiasm” gap is going to widen to Grand Canyon level proportions in favor of the GOP before Nov. 6th dawns.

    “Trump’s “mocking” of Ford during a rally, which wasn’t mocking so much as forcing the American press to cover the ex-boyfriends sworn statement contradicting Ford’s statements and the nature of Ford’s responses”

    That was classic Trump. The media, flush with TDS, couldnt help themselves: “omg watch what Trump said this time”. On all stations for 48 hours saturation.

Enough Dem Senators facing tough re-election races said their vote on Kavanagh was no that there should be a few more Republican seats in the Senate for next time.

I thought Collins’ speech one of the best I’ve ever heard. She went over issues in a logical, reasoned manner. She went out of her way to avoid attacking fellow Senators, therefore leaving a (rickety) bridge between the parties. She was convincing at being impartial. And, most of all, she restored some honor to the role of United States Senator. Whereas Graham supplied the fire and passion to engage in battle, Collins supplied the basis for a cease fire. I doubt the hysterical left will seize the opportunity, but I commend Susan Collins for her devotion to duty.