The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Reprinted with permission from Shareblue.

 

Trump and the Republicans are trying to ram through an extreme right-wing Supreme Court nominee — but Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) might be a huge roadblock.

During Sunday morning’s edition of CNN’s “State of the Union,” host Jake Tapper grilled Collins, one of the few pro-choice Republicans in the Senate, on her likely reactions to Trump’s selections. And Collins made her most direct pledge to defend Roe v. Wade yet.

“I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade,” Collins said, “because that would mean to me their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law.”

Collins also strongly urged Trump to go “beyond” the list of 25 candidates he’s made public, which includes hard-right nominees hand-picked by the Federalist Society.

Collins also noted that Roe has been “settled law” for 45 years, that it “involves a constitutional right, and has been reaffirmed by the court 26 years ago.”

Collins’ pledge will come as a relief to many after the Maine senator’s recent statement that Collins would not consider a nominee’s position on Roe v. Wade, or any other “litmus test,” during the confirmation process.

Her vote will be extremely important in the Supreme Court nomination fight, since Republicans hold a 51-49 majority, and any nominee needs a majority vote to be confirmed.

On the other hand, Collins also defended her vote for Justice Neil Gorsuch, telling Tapper that she doesn’t think Gorsuch would overturn Roe. That notion is belied by Gorsuch’s fetish for “plain meaning,” as well as the excitement he has generated among anti-choice activists.

However, Gorsuch replaced the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was definitely not a swing vote. Kennedy was — and perhaps Collins realizes how bad it would be for women to replace Kennedy with an opponent of abortion rights.

Collins’ latest statement is the most encouraging sign yet that Trump is going to have a tougher time than he bargained for seating an anti-choice justice.

Published with permission of The American Independent. 

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court of the United States

YouTube Screenshot

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Keep reading... Show less

Billionaires

YouTube Screenshot

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

Last June, drawing on the largest trove of confidential American tax data that’s ever been obtained, ProPublica launched a series of stories documenting the key ways the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, strategies that are largely unavailable to most taxpayers. To mark the first anniversary of the launch, we decided to assemble a quick summary of the techniques — all of which can generate tax savings on a massive scale — revealed in the series.

1. The Ultra Wealth Effect

Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}