of course, when asked about abortion, those nominees said they would not touch precedent. they persuaded moderate republican senators who supported abortion that it was safe to put them on the bench.
the most gullible was susan collins of maine, who was under pressure in 2018 to oppose kavanaugh. she voted for him. she believed that kavanaugh would not overturn the abortion ruling because, after all, he’d told her “many times” the decision was settled law. she said the same about neil gorsuch.
we don’t know with certainty whether gorsuch and kavanaugh will rescind the right, but we certainly assume they will vote with their conservative colleagues.
poor collins, as naïve as her critics said, who got up on her low horse tuesday and said, gee, if the draft ruling stands, it would “be completely inconsistent” with what they told her personally in her office and in the hearings.
well, yes, it would be, but it would reflect their judicial philosophy, which is the reason they were appointed by trump, applauded lustily by the federalist society and opposed mightily by democrats and pro-choice women’s groups. all knew what collins did not.
now we know the old rules no longer apply. a high court of the united states no longer seeks consensus, or honours precedent or a half-century of law. it ends a constitutional right with a leak — and a shrug.