Your lead front-page story July 2 was headlined “Collins would oppose nominee hostile to Roe v. Wade.”

You printed that headline as if it were an objective truth. Here’s why it isn’t.

She eschews a “litmus test” and won’t ask the nominee directly if they would overturn Roe v. Wade. So, how does she make the determination if she opposes such a nominee?

CNN’s Jake Tapper asked her Sunday morning: “For instance, don’t you think, just as an academic matter, Neil Gorsuch, for whom you voted, don’t you think he is probably going to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance?”

She had the most astonishing response: “I actually don’t.

“I had a very long discussion with Justice Gorsuch in my office, and he pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent. So, someone who devotes that much time to writing a book on precedent, I think, understands how important a principle that is in our judicial system.”

How, then, does she explain his majority vote to overturn Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in the Janus decision mere days before?

Gorsuch was vetted by the Federalist Society. Trump will only nominate candidates given the rubber stamp by the Federalist Society. All of them will vote to overturn Roe. She told Tapper she encouraged Trump to broaden his list of candidates beyond the 25 provided by the Federalist Society. Trump promised during the campaign to appoint SCOTUS justices to overturn Roe.

What is she thinking?

In December, she claimed she had an “ironclad” guarantee from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that he’d bring the Alexander-Murray Affordable Care Act subsidy bill to the floor by year’s end in exchange for her vote on the Republican tax scam.

Guess what happened? Nothing. She was suckered.

I hope she doesn’t get suckered again. But I have no reason to believe otherwise.

George Dragoumanos

Saco

Copy the Story Link