Collins' Tragic Error on the Kavanaugh Vote

Part of the tragic error of Senator Collin’s thought process is that the issue and the hearing was not part of a criminal process concerning the guilt or innocence of Judge Kavanaugh.  It was about whether he should become a Supreme Court Justice.  

Therefore the maxim “innocent until proven guilty” is not relevant.  The fact that Ms. Ford’s accusations were not corroborated (in this brief, woefully inadequate, investigation) is not relevant.  If she was a credible witness, which most agree she was, then that at a minimum raised a doubt about whether Kavanaugh in fact did assault her.  Her charge was only refuted by Kavanaugh himself and his friends.  

That measure of doubt should have been enough to keep him off the Supreme Court.  The image of the Supreme Court is of critical importance to its effectiveness in our system of government.  That she felt that the FBI investigation had been adequate is hard to understand. Then there is the matter of Kavanaugh's apparently lying under oath about the extent of his drinking and his decidedly unjudicial demeanor at the hearing.

All together this should have resulted in Senator Collins deciding that regardless his credentials and his other qualities, he should not be elevated to the Supreme Court.

Then there is the Senator’s confidence in Kavanaugh’s judicial thinking.  Senator Collins explained carefully that from her conversations with him she was confidant that he would not overturn Roe v Wade.  He felt that the case was settled precedent.  She also felt he would not throw out Obamacare.

How foolish of Senator Collins!  How many times have lawyers/judges used legal double speak in recent times to make Senators feel like they were mild-mannered men who would do no harm to the public good, who honored the Constitution and precedent.  And yet once on the bench, they showed their true colors and consistently voted their ideological bias; they did not judge a case based on its facts and they did not honor precedent.

It is true that it has at times been important in the past to overturn precedent, such as the case of Brown v Board of Education that declared segregated schooling unconstitutional; separate was not equal.  This was necessitated by progressive changes in society’s attitudes towards people of color and what defined the common good.

The court voted as it did not because of the justices own ideological preferences but because of the change they saw in the country and the need to lead the country to a more just future.  If Roe is overturned, it will instead be precisely because of the ideological preferences of the justices and a vocal minority of the populace.  Surveys show consistently that the vast majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose.

The future of our democracy will in many ways be impacted negatively by Senator Collins’ vote.  That she was so full of herself that she gave the speech she gave was not an indication of a woman of strength and intelligence, although it sounded like that, but rather an indication of her weakness and her inability to truly understand what her role was in this moment.  Senator Murkowski on the other hand understood the moment.

Senator Murkowski as Role Model

Last week, after being harangued and bashed by President Trump, Senator Murkowski (R-AK) said what all Republican Senators should say and what should govern their actions. “With all due respect, Mr. President,” she reportedly told him, “I didn’t come here to represent the Republican Party. I am representing my constituents and the state of Alaska.”

This is the duty that all Congressmen and Senators have … to represent the best interests of their constituents and state.  That is their responsibility as elected officials.  If those interests go against the desires of Party leadership, so be it. 

We would not be in the partisan predicament we’ve been witnessing in Congress if all members acted on that responsibility of office.  Sure, some are truly far-right conservatives and know that’s why they were elected.  But many who have toed the line of Senate majority-leader McConnell on numerous issues are not hard-line conservatives.  Their fealty to the Party is misplaced and goes against the best interests of their constituents.

Some Republicans might try to argue that their sworn oath “to support the constitution” overrides the interests of constituents.  That may be true when a matter truly contravenes the constitution in letter or principle, but the types of things that Congress has been debating, and regarding which Senator McConnell has repeatedly enforced party discipline, do not rise to that level of import. 

Which raises the question.  Who are the “constituents” when that phrase is used?  Is it the people who voted for President Trump or a particular Representative or Senator?  Or is it all the people in their respective jurisdictions?

Presidents often say in their inaugural speech that they promise to be the President for all Americans.  Even Trump made such a statement.  He said he would restore the promise of America "for all our people. " And that is indeed as it should be.  The President is not elected just to promote the interests of those who voted for him.  He is the President of the entire country.  Yes, he campaigned on certain themes and made certain promises, and he should live up to those, in general.  But once elected, those campaign themes need to be tempered by the best interests of the country as a whole.

Such tempering is not an example of a President selling out, any more than is the change in tone and position from the primaries, when the combat is between members of the same party and the audience are members of that party, to that of the general election when the audience is the entire country.  The same change can be often be seen in those who are appointed to the Supreme Court.  Many a President has been dismayed that the person they appointed because of his politics, legal and otherwise, has turned out once on the bench to change his respective because of the role he has assumed.  Perhaps the most famous example of this was Justice Earl Warren.

Each and every Representative and Senator should keep Senator Murkowski’s words before them when they debate a matter and feel pressure from Party leadership to vote in a way which is contrary to the interests of their constituents.  Often that pressure is nothing short of blackmail, as it was when Senator Murkowski was threatened with Alaska’s losing a variety of significant benefits from the Federal government.  She still stood her ground, as was her duty.