There’s nothing quite as vulgar and violently threatening as a peeved liberal.
Case in point: Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, recently spoke with Fox News to reveal the slew of angry voice messages she got before she decided to back President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh.
In an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum, Collins — who became a swing vote for Kavanaugh — said her office received some disturbing threats.
In one voicemail, the caller warned that if she voted for Kavanaugh – who faced multiple sexual assault and misconduct allegations which he denied – she would be a “feckless woman” letting President Trump and his appointees “steal health care from millions.”
The caller then unleashed on Collins: “You are so f—ing naïve. You will go down in history as the most naïve person ever to be in Congress. You f—ing, f—ing feckless naïve woman. Trying to make Americans more equal. F— you.”
Another message said: “Don’t be a dumb c—. Don’t’ be a stupid f—ing hypocrite. If you care at all about women’s stories, vote no on Kavanaugh. Don’t be a dumb b—-. F— you also.”
During Kavanaugh’s hearing, Collins delivered a dramatic floor speech just before the confirmation vote in which she condemned the process — Democrats leveled uncorroborated sexual allegations against Kavanaugh at the 11th hour, which she called a “caricature of a gutter-level political campaign” — and calmly explained why due process is necessary.
Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.
Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.
In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.
The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.
After the vote, the senator’s family “had a scare when a hazardous materials team was called to her Bangor, Maine home in response to a threatening letter containing what its author said was ricin. An FBI spokeswoman later told The Associated Press preliminary tests indicated no threat to the public,” Fox reported.