Talk:Susan Collins

(Redacted).
(Redacted) Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This is completely inappropriate and I probably should have removed the section instead of responding to it. Implying that she has a condition is a BLP violation. Your original research is not required here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed it. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Greetings,
 * Thank you for your time, but not for your over-reaction in redacting my sincere query, Wordreader (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time, but not for your over-reaction in redacting my sincere query, Wordreader (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If you have public, independent reliable sources that document the medical conditions of Senator Collins, then offer them. Your own analysis is original research and a WP:BLP violation. No, we would not mention any person limping if reliable sources do not call attention to it. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this section needs to be removed. Talk pages are not for speculation about living person's medical conditions, no matter who they are. If you have reliable sources, then edit the article. This is not the place for chit chat speculation about a person's health. Use social media for that. Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * And issued a 72 hour block. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Dobbs v. Jackson
Why is this being fully deleted without any discussion, edit improvements. It is consistent with what is already within the article and consistent with what is within the spot of placement already. These are now historical events and cited with primary sources citations and related highly respected news articles. I can agree improvements can be made but total deletion is an abuse by administrators. I am requesting arbitration.

On May 2, 2022, Politico ran an exclusive article of the confirmed legitimate leaked opinion of the court where Brett Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Subsequent to the release of this leaked opinion Susan Collins stated, “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.” The Senator in 2018, made a speech on the floor of the US Senate to defend her vote for Kavanaugh, as there were substantial doubts that Brett Kavanaugh was being genuine in his promise.

The New York Times at the time described the situation stating: “Her usually reliable Republican ally, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, had just broken with the party against the confirmation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That left Ms. Collins as the sole Republican supporter of abortion rights who could derail a man seen as a serious threat to Roe v. Wade — not to mention that he had been accused of sexual misconduct.

Ms. Collins did not derail him.

Instead, she took to the Senate floor Friday afternoon and delivered a reasoned, carefully researched, 45-minute point-by-point defense of her support for Judge Kavanaugh.

“His views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.”

The New York Times: Susan Collins, Standing Alone, Makes Her Case for Kavanaugh; October 5, 2018 Susan Collins in her speech vouched that Brett Kavanaugh would defend Roe:

Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48, and could not have been seated without the vote of Senator Susan Collins who made the decisive vote for conformation. On May 11, 2022, after the leaked opinion became public, Senator Collins voted against a bill to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. On June 24, 2022, Roe v. Wade was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson. Justice Kavanaugh once confirmed did vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. "With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent," the three dissenting justices wrote.

In addition to overturning Roe v. Wade, in Dobbs v Jackson, the court indicated in Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion it would seek to reverse Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Griswold v. Connecticut. This will have wide implications on reinstituting state Sodomy Law to allow for the imprisonment of gay people again, stripping away Gay Marriage, and banning all forms of birth control among married adults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.100.206 (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * An article Talk page is not the place to request arbitration. That would be WP:ARBREQ.  General Ization  Talk  05:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi General Ization, I have opened the arbitration request. Before disputing, I have had talk discussions on this content that were closed without addressing the deletions. The only feedback I had was “get off your soapbox.” This article is addressing historical events, it is not a ‘soapbox’ issue. I also requested assistance with edit clean up of article edit. I acknowledge I need assistance, especially with citation formatting, citing critics correctly to not indicate bias but capturing their professional critique. That said, I do not believe total delegation is warranted. Please feel free to assist with editing and help to resolve the dispute on this page.

24.185.100.206 (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)CollinsHistorian


 * I do not support your edits. I believe they are off-topic at this article, and will not support any edit that misspells the words "precedence" (look it up), or more correctly, precedents, and "among". It also includes unsourced commentary that reveals a lack of neutral point of view. Good luck.  General Ization Talk  19:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with General Ization  on this. Brian (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

OP reply; thank you for your feedback. I have made the suggested edits you referenced and instead brought in a block quote from the New York Times. The block quote is on topic with the “ Collins attracted controversy for voting to support the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court; Collins attributed her vote for Kavanaugh because she wrongly believed that he would not support overturning Roe v. Wade.” within the article. It explains why there was controversy which is currently unclear. The controversy is described here from stemming from the moment in history where the vote to confirm fell upon one senator ‘a up or down vote, Susan Collins understanding this took to the floor to make a speech to defend her vote. As far as the spelling errors I welcome corrections, not personal attacks (see open appeal). See hyperlinks before commenting on relevance for consideration on how the articles added dontie together. It is wiki policy to build consensus and be open to edits within a dispute and I will continue to do this. 2600:1017:B40B:3942:1C8E:28F2:3277:A6F5 (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)CollinsHistorian

Following edits and consensus a request to add this back into the article under “Abortion” subtitle “Dobbs v. Jackson” has been put forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B40B:3942:1C8E:28F2:3277:A6F5 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for your massive edit. It fails WP:NPOV in addition to poor formatting and overall writing. Go one piece at a time if you want to propose a change. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022
Edit being reversed on Susan Collins wiki page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Collins

This edit goes through the impact of the vote Susan Collins took, the speech she made on the Senate Floor, the subsequent public statements Susan Collins made, and the historical impacts regaurding Dobbs v. Jackson. The edit is consistent both in relevant content and placement of already existing edits. For instance the article discusses Amy Barrett’s nomination vote directly above the edit. I agree the edit can be refined, that the citations formatting can be improved, even that it can be shortened. But that is what the talk page is used for and through collaboration the edit can be improved. Collaboration is important because my strength may be pulling together facts and ideas, but not spelling and wiki citation methods, even improvement to make sure bias is not coming through but appropriately capturing the national discussion of the legacy and criticisms that are being made by respected scholars and commentators.

However, to consistently strip out what legal scholars are arguing is the most profound vote in US History regaurdong civil rights and the function of the entire judicial branch is a disservice to history and the purpose of wikipedia. This is not a speculative piece, it is now historical looking back at past events. I am willing to work with administrators, provide more citations etc., but request that the content not be excluded from the article.

Please find the below edit:

On May 2, 2022, Politico ran an exclusive article of the confirmed legitimate leaked opinion of the court where Brett Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Subsequent to the release of this leaked opinion Susan Collins stated, “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,.” The Senator in 2018, made a speech on the floor of the US Senate to defend her vote for Kavanaugh, as there were substantial doubts that Brett Kavanaugh was being genuine in his promise. Susan Collins in her speech vouched that Brett Kavanaugh would defend Roe: “His views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.” Senator Collins in the speech was in part referencing stare decisis, which bound the court by precidence in it’s judicial rulings. Legal scholars, such as Alison Frankel, argue precidence based rule of law would fall along with Roe v. Wade in this leaked opinion. As early as October 5, 2018 the NYT described Susan Collins vote as her “legacy” and cited Michael Keegan, president of People for the American Way as stating, “This shameful vote will be Susan Collins’s legacy,”. Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48, and could not have been seated without the vote of Senator Susan Collins. On May 11, 2022, after the leaked opinion became public, Senator Collins voted against a bill to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. On June 24, 2022, Roe v. Wade was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson. The decisive, now legacy, vote by Susan Collins to confirm Brett Kavanaugh proved the promise she had recieved in exchange for her vote was disingenuous. Susan Collins claims to have been “misled” despite having ample warning by others the promise was disingenuous. Susan Collins was criticized at the time for casting her vote to confirm the justice on a promise she was warned the justice would not keep. Justice Kavanaugh once confirmed did vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. This was the first time the US Supreme Court reversed a constitutional right it had previously recognized. "With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent," the three dissenting justices wrote. A right millions of American Women would still have today if not for Susan Collin’s swing vote to change the course of history. In addition to overturning Roe v. Wade, the court indicated in Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion it would seek to reverse Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Griswold v. Connecticut. The effect of this confirmation will have wide implications on reinstituting Sodomy Laws to allow for the imprisonment of gay people again, stripping away Gay Marriage, and banning all forms of birth control even amoung married adults.

24.185.100.206 (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)CollinsHistorian


 * So all this is one voters fault? Is there any fault at the other 49 who voted for Kavanaugh? He also does not run the Supreme Court. I think what is already in the article about this should suffice. Brian (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit addresses: All of these are closely tied together and absent from the current article. To leave these out shows article bias over the career of Susan Collins surrounding the swing vote, deciding vote, speeches, actual opinions surrounding there of and reversal of “precident upon precident” to quote Kavanaugh’s speech at the time. It is noted that not only is it Susan Collins’ job to vett and vote on judges, she specifically and publicly addressed this as her key decision to proceed with her vote. I invite you to point out as a fact that it takes 50 votes to secure a nomination to the court, which is why her vote was decisive, and that she was the final senator to announce support which is why her floor speech was covered live on news networks.
 * 1) The fact of a leaked opinion
 * 2) The fact of Senator Collins response to the leaked opinion.
 * 3) The floor speech made in the Senate by Senator Collins who thought this topic evidently was important enough to justify her vote with.
 * 4) Legal expert analysis highlighting wide spread criticism without the editor of this article articulating a viewpoint.
 * 5) The fact of the vote to confirm being 50-48.
 * 6) The May vote against codifying Roe v. Wade subsequent to the leaked memo by Susan Collins.
 * 7) The release Dobbs v. Jackson confirming the critical analysis of #4
 * 8) This concurring opinion stating the future impact on Gay Marriage, Sodomy Laws, and Contraception.

24.185.100.206 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)CollinsHistorian


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I am open to a consensus but to date the only formal feedback I received for trying to publish this is “get off your soapbox” which is why Inopened this dispute. There was no substance for me to build consensus on as there was no legitimate question; just deletion. 24.185.100.206 (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)CollinsHistorian


 * It was appropriate feedback that you haven't yet followed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Which piece of feedback is still open so I can address one piece at a time. @Muboshgu the first part: Part 1. On May 2, 2022, Politico ran an exclusive article of the confirmed legitimate leaked opinion of the court where Brett Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Subsequent to the release of this leaked opinion Susan Collins stated, “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.” The Senator in 2018, made a speech on the floor of the US Senate to defend her vote for Kavanaugh, as there were substantial doubts that Brett Kavanaugh was being genuine in his promise.

The New York Times at the time described the situation stating: “Her usually reliable Republican ally, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, had just broken with the party against the confirmation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That left Ms. Collins as the sole Republican supporter of abortion rights who could derail a man seen as a serious threat to Roe v. Wade — not to mention that he had been accused of sexual misconduct.

Ms. Collins did not derail him.

Instead, she took to the Senate floor Friday afternoon and delivered a reasoned, carefully researched, 45-minute point-by-point defense of her support for Judge Kavanaugh.

“His views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.”

The New York Times: Susan Collins, Standing Alone, Makes Her Case for Kavanaugh; October 5, 2018 Susan Collins in her speech vouched that Brett Kavanaugh would defend Roe:

What is the question here that I can address from the admin, please specify the needed changes.

The fact’s are not in dispute here, there was a leaked draft, Susan Collins did make the quoted statements, the article discusses a controversy without background that Collins had to make a decision whether or not to support the judge and be the deciding vote, or to block the judge securing confirmation. She made her decision with a floor speech which is public record in the Library of Congress. The speech she put out there was to address the question of her promise of protections for Roe v. Wade. The article currently does not address what the criticisms or controversy is that it speaks about. Which facts can we add to provide this clarification? 24.185.100.206 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)CollinsHistorian

Sentence in lead as it relates to Dobbs v Jackson and Justice Kavanaugh
The sentence in the lead: "She attributed her vote to her false belief that Kavanaugh would not support overturning Roe v. Wade..." is what I want to talk about. It's not that Senator Collins convinced herself that he wouldn't overturn Roe, like the article seems to portray (or how Donald Trump convinced himself the 2020 election was stolen by fraudulent means, which is an entirely different matter), from the sources that I had seen, then-Judge Kavanaugh, when asked, had told Senator Collins that Roe was "settled law". I think in this instance, she was just a bit gullible, and in that case I would understand why she would feel misled. However, the Collins-Kavanaugh meeting took place on August 21, 2018; Roe was not overturned until June 24, 2022. It's not like Kavanaugh was actively planning to overturn Roe or any other landmark decisions, he probably didn't know what the future on the Supreme Court would hold for him. The same applies to Gorsuch (whose nomination was more than five years ago at this point), Barrett (who Collins voted against), and any other nominee for the Supreme Court. Unknown0124 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"learned his lesson"
Google "learned his lesson" and it's all Susan Collins at the top results. This expression should be in the article 2600:1012:B003:8B1B:4818:47D:D51C:7051 (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"learned his lesson"
Google "learned his lesson"and it's all Susan Collins in the first results. This quote is becoming her legacy. It should be in the article. MBUSHIstory (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * , can you provide some of these sources and recommend the specific text to add to it so the community can evaluate the proposal? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)