Sen. Susan Collins gets in an elevator after speaking on Oct. 5, 2018, about her vote on Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. (Photo: Alex Brandon/AP) On the ceiling of the Capitol Rotunda, 180 feet above the floor, there is a painting of George Washington with a banner above his head that reads “E Pluribus Unum,” which is Latin for “out of many, one.” But as Friday’s theatrics in the U.S. Senate demonstrated, the motto symbolizing the ideal of a unified country that draws people with disparate views together from disparate places is not our current reality. In fact, that was a central conclusion drawn in a speech delivered by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, as she explained why she would cast a decisive vote in favor of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. “We live in a time of such great disunity,” Collins said. “It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them.” “The drafters of our Constitution … were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people,” she said. “Their vision of ‘a more perfect Union’ does not exist today, and if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it.” Collins was interrupted by protesters as she began her remarks, and Capitol Police cleared the fourth floor of the Dirksen Office Building, where Collins’s office is located, after she finished speaking, to prevent protesters from storming into it. On Twitter, Collins’s decision to support Kavanaugh was met with rage. “Never let Collins have a moment of peace in public again,” said Kat Calvin, a lawyer and founder of Spread the Vote, a group that promotes expanding voting access. Calvin was then targeted with vague threats from those who disagreed with her. “We know where you live,” one anonymous account wrote back. When Collins posted the full text of her speech to the site, it was met with profanity and insults. Such is the state of discourse on social media, and such is the state of our politics. Supreme Court police officers detain a group of demonstrators opposed to Brett Kavanaugh outside the court on Oct. 5, 2018. (Photo: Aaron P. Bernstein/Bloomberg/Getty Images) Within moments of the conclusion of Collins’s 45-minute speech, a former top aide to former President Barack Obama, Jen Psaki, joined the fray on Twitter, seeking candidates who might be able to mount a challenge to Collins for her Senate seat in 2020. Story continues “Who wants to run for Senate in Maine? there will be an army of supporters with you,” Psaki tweeted. Maine resident Susan Rice, Obama’s former national security adviser and ambassador to the United Nations, responded to Psaki with one word: “Me.” In her speech, Collins explained in detail why she had come to support Kavanaugh. The Maine Republican said that while she found the woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault at a high school party in 1982, Christine Blasey Ford, to be “sincere” and “compelling,” she did not feel Ford’s testimony rose above the threshold of being “more likely than not.” Collins also issued a scathing rebuke to the unknown “leaker” who gave Ford’s letter first detailing her accusation to the press, despite Ford’s wish to remain anonymous. “To that leaker, who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect, but who also trusted you to protect her — and you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting,” Collins said, her voice rising. “My only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate — and indeed all Americans — to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court nominees,” Collins said. More than 20 Republican senators sat in the chamber listening with rapt attention. Only three Democrats sat on the other side. Nearly two dozen Democratic staff members, however, watched from benches in the back corner and at times were not able to conceal their discontent with Collins’s decision. Sen. Lindsey Graham speaks outside a secure underground room in the Capitol where senators were briefed on the FBI background file on sexual allegations made against Kavanaugh, on Oct. 3, 2018. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP) When Collins finished, most Republican senators came by her desk to shake her hand or give her a hug. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has emerged during this process as a hero to the right after being regarded for years as an establishment sellout, called Collins’s speech one of the finest in his memory. He also once again blasted away at Kavanaugh’s accusers and the Democrats who sought to promote them. “This is as close to McCarthyism as I hope we get in my lifetime,” Graham said. Graham’s anger, which boiled over during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Ford and Kavanaugh, was based on a feeling that while Ford’s accusation was credible and deserved a hearing, there were other accusations that followed Ford’s that were far more flimsy and ultimately veered into baseless slander. Collins, in her speech, echoed that view. She called allegations of Kavanaugh’s involvement with “gang rape” during his high school days “outlandish” and said this rumor — injected into the public conversation by an attention-seeking attorney who has spoken of running for president — was “a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.” Collins said she hoped that the Kavanaugh fight would be the “rock bottom” of the judicial confirmation process, after “a steady decline for more than thirty years.” But there is no reason to believe it will be. “We are on a dangerous road, and the judicial confirmation wars are going to get a lot worse for our traveling down it,” wrote Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare, in a column for the Atlantic arguing that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because the preponderance of the evidence, in his mind, “leans toward Ford.” The story of how we got to this contentious and ugly place has many chapters to it. The most recent was written only 18 months ago when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in response to a decision by Democrats to refuse to allow a vote. At the time, Democrats were retaliating for McConnell’s refusal to give Obama’s choice in 2016 for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, a vote. And in 2016 McConnell had his own justification for blocking Garland, based on what he saw as Democratic sins of the past. The tit-for-tat has gone on for decades, escalating over the past 15 years or so. The losers of this fight are not Democrats or Republicans but the American people, especially minorities and those without power, for whom an independent and trusted judiciary is a crucial bulwark against abuses. As Collins said in her speech, “It is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.” The law is supposed to be a central protection against unfairness. But the Supreme Court may now be truly broken in that it is viewed as a political institution rather than a body where outcomes are decided by an agreed-upon set of rules. “There’s no time for nuance; there is only time for war,” wrote Amy Walter, national editor of the Cook Political Report. “So, war it will be for the foreseeable future.” _____ More Yahoo News stories on the Supreme Court:<doc-sep>Mitch McConnell’s legacy is riding on Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness. Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford's testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred. None of the individuals Professor Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night. Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. PJ Smyth, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. Professor Ford's lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, indicated that under penalty of felony she does not remember that party. And Ms. Keyser went further. She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh. The FBI investigation didn’t go very far by design. In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say I was at the party that night. Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride, yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one who drove her home or were in the car with her that night. And Professor Ford also indicated that, even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying good-bye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left, is she okay, not even her closest friend Ms. Keyser. Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. It leaves that decision up to each senator. This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard. The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the more likely than not standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court.<doc-sep>In a speech announcing her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, reminded me of some of the great orators of the past. Her speech was measured in tone, substantive in content and delivered with conviction. Collins is no conservative. She has voted in favor of abortion and same-sex marriage while towing a more moderate line on economics. Her speech supporting Kavanaugh and denouncing the smears against him and the distortion of his judicial record was as good as any delivered by her more conservative colleagues. She correctly labeled the process that has become corrupt, nasty and divisive: “We have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.” Collins chastised activists who sent out fundraising letters opposing President Trump’s nominee even before Kavanaugh was announced: “…we have seen special-interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods...” She didn’t mention the major media’s complicity in helping those groups to publicize the falsehoods with virtually no corrections to their outlandish claims. Noting “Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than thirty years,” she added this wish: “One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom.” Given the level of virulent hatred by the left I wouldn’t bet on it. Nearing the end of her speech, Collins said of the process surrounding the Kavanaugh nomination: “It is a case of people bearing ill will towards those who disagree with them. In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans.” After saying she has been assured by Kavanaugh of his respect for precedent — by which she meant fealty to Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act — she said that Kavanaugh was not a sure vote for policies of the Trump administration. She pointed out that other justices nominated by Republican presidents have voted in ways that went against their wishes, United States vs. Nixon being one of the more significant ones. There was a glimmer of hope in Collins’ speech for those who believe Roe was wrongly decided. She said, “There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent.” In what might be one of those “carved in stone” quotes, Collins delivered her most profound line: “We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.” Fairness was not just in jeopardy; it was murdered. Democrats and activists promoted inaccurate and unfair stories and treated as truth the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. They did the same with others who claimed, without evidence, that Kavanaugh participated in, or was present at, alleged gang rapes fueled by drugs and alcohol. About that Collins said, “This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.” In this instance, the presumption of guilt was the rule. Though there were no corroborating witnesses and Ford, herself, could not remember significant details about the evening, virtually all Senate Democrats and many Americans appeared ready to lynch Kavanaugh, causing harm to his reputation, character and grief to his family and friends, including many women who issued statements about his honor and fitness for the court. Nearing the end of her speech, Collins said of the process surrounding the Kavanaugh nomination: “It is a case of people bearing ill will towards those who disagree with them. In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans.” Unfortunately, a younger generation of Americans knows little about those values. They seem to be rarely taught in public schools and universities. That is why they are slipping away. Young people would do well to be reminded of them by reading Sen. Collins’ speech.<doc-sep>
One theory I have heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague, Senator Feinstein, leaked Professor Ford’s letter at the eleventh hour to derail this process. I want to state this very clearly: I know Senator Dianne Feinstein extremely well, and I believe that she would never do that. I knew that to be the case before she even stated it at the hearing. She is a person of integrity, and I stand by her. I have also heard some argue that the Chairman of the Committee somehow treated Professor Ford unfairly. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chairman Grassley, along with his excellent staff, treated Professor Ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. And that is the way the Senator from Iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service. But the fact remains, Mr. President, that someone leaked this letter against Professor Ford’s express wishes. I suspect, regrettably, that we will never know for certain who did it. To that leaker, who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect, but who also trusted you to protect her – and you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting. My only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate – and indeed all Americans – to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court nominees. If that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded Professor Ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences. Mr. President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination had reached a fever pitch even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction. We live in a time of such great disunity, as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates. It is not merely a case of different groups having different opinions. It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them. In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans. When some of our best minds are seeking to develop ever more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify. This would have alarmed the drafters of our Constitution, who were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people. Indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the Constitution, the one that they put first was the formation of “a more perfect Union.” Their vision of “a more perfect Union” does not exist today, and if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it. It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principal guardian of our shared constitutional heritage, is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens. Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and counter charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father. Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our Judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.