TOP
Susan Collins
Chapters
The FRONTLINE Interviews
Susan Collins
U.S. Senator (R-ME)
Susan Collins is a United States senator from Maine. Sen. Collins is considered a moderate Republican, sometimes breaking with her party on major votes. She cast a deciding vote toward the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
This interview was conducted by FRONTLINE’s Michael Kirk on December 12, 2018. It has been edited for clarity and length.
This interview appears in:
Text Interview:
Highlight text to share it
The Death of Justice Scalia and Mitch McConnell’s Gamble
Senator, let’s start with the death of Justice [Antonin] Scalia and Leader [Mitch] McConnell’s (R-Ky.) decision, very quickly, to preclude a nominee being offered by Barack Obama.What were your thoughts about that at that moment?
First of all, I was very surprised to learn of Sen. McConnell’s decision.This was not a case where he consulted with all of us in the caucus.To be fair, we were all spread all over the country, perhaps around the world, so it would have been difficult for him to do so.But he immediately made a decision that we would not even consider a nominee that was proposed by President Obama, and I disagreed with that decision.
The president is still the president and under the Constitution has the right to nominate judicial nominees.So I was surprised, particularly since this wasn’t a case where the election was going to be in the next month.It was many months before the election.
And [Merrick] Garland, Judge Garland strikes me as somebody that you might have liked judicially as a—he lands in the right place on a lot of issues, a moderate, certainly maybe even a conservative moderate…How did you feel about it?And did you meet with Garland?
…All I knew is I felt that Merrick Garland deserved a hearing and deserved the normal process.If members wanted to vote against him, for whatever reason, they could do so.But to not even allow the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on his nomination just did not sit right with me.The irony is, of course, is that the left was very annoyed at President Obama for appointing such a centrist judge as his nominee.I did meet with Merrick Garland.I had a very good discussion with him.I also happen to know an individual in Maine who is now the U.S. attorney who had clerked for him, and when I checked him out, when I checked the judge out with my friend in Maine, he received very high reviews.
Now, I did not do the kind of in-depth analysis of his record.But I do think that it’s noteworthy that when I was reviewing Judge Kavanaugh’s record on the D.C. Circuit that he and Judge Garland voted the same 93 percent of the time on the cases that they heard together.
How does McConnell keep the discipline in the caucus at a moment like that?If there's enough of you that want to move it forward, what is his master plan that you're sort of either instructed to or buy into?
To be fair, I was very much in a minority.Many people, most of the members of our caucus praised Sen. McConnell for his decision and felt that he was very farsighted in what he decided to do.Also, I should point out that very shortly after Sen. McConnell made his decision, a video of then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), when he was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, surfaced in which he said that there would be no confirmation of any Supreme Court judge during the last year of President Bush’s term should a vacancy arise.So Sen. McConnell legitimately was able to point to a prominent Democratic senator, indeed someone who became vice president, who essentially established that precedent.I don’t think it was right in either case.
That’s the so-called Biden Rule you're talking about, right?
Yes.
The Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh
Let me bring you to another moment, closer in time to now, which is that first day of the hearings, the committee’s hearings.I watched the videotape last week, and again, of everybody filing into the room.The Democrats are there.The Republicans are there.Sen. [Chuck] Grassley (R-Iowa) is tapping the gavel.There's protesters in the back of the room.There's been protesters in the hallways.And just chaos ensues.In some ways, some people we've talked to said, “Well, this is just an example of the partisanship gone mad, right away, in the beginning of this hearing.”How did you read what was happening, Senator?
I was embarrassed for the Senate.When Chairman Grassley was not even allowed to complete his opening statement before being interrupted by Democratic senators in what was clearly an orchestrated move, I was very worried about the confirmation process.We’ve seen a gradual but persistent politicization of the judicial nomination process for Supreme Court nominees over the past 30 years, and this seemed to me to be a new low, when the chairman is not even allowed to deliver, without interruptions by his fellow senators, not to mention the protesters, his opening statement.
And that worries me, because the Supreme Court should be above politics.I'm not naïve on how the system works.I understand that presidents are going to appoint nominees who reflect their general philosophy.But our job, under the Constitution, is a very solemn one.Our advice-and-consent duty is one that requires us to review a nominee’s qualifications and, in my judgment, determine whether or not the nominee is within the mainstream of judicial philosophy.
You—the way I go back and read it and talk to people, you become the person kind of “on the bubble” for McConnell and others.You are the vote … if he’s counting heads, and it’s going to come right down on Kavanaugh, you, Flake, maybe [Lisa] Murkowski (R-Alaska), maybe [Heidi] Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and [Joe] Manchin [D-W.Va.], there's just a few people who haven't sort of—he doesn’t seem to have in his pocket in some way.Describe your position at the beginning of those hearings, as you are being probably seen by Sen. McConnell and others.
Well, first, to me, it is very telling that we’re so polarized right now that we had outside ideologically driven interest groups that were putting out press releases in opposition to President Trump’s nominee before they even knew who the nominee was.
Right.
And in fact, one press release actually says, “Oppose Judge XXX.”They forgot to fill in the judge’s name.And people on both sides of the aisle very quickly took positions on Judge Kavanaugh before they knew anything about him, or very little about him.I don’t understand that.That is not my approach.The number of us who were truly undecided was probably fewer than 10.And we talked frequently.We were determined, even though we didn’t come out in the same place, but we were determined to go through a thorough process.And I was very worried about what the process said to the American people.I want the American people to have faith in our government institutions, and the courts most of all.
We know and expect that the executive branch and the Congress are going to be political, but the judiciary is supposed to be above politics, and what I saw was the process with Judge Kavanaugh that quickly became a dysfunctional circus, and really the low point in a steady decline in the dignity of the nomination process.
Why, Senator?
Because we had senators who had already made up their minds before they had heard a word of testimony from the nominee.And that was true on both sides of the aisle.We had outside groups that were determined to destroy Justice Kavanaugh, and just because he was appointed by President Trump.It would not have mattered if President Trump, in my view, had nominated Merrick Garland.I think they still would have opposed the nominee, simply because of the identity of the president.
When I have looked at Supreme Court nominees over the years that I've been privileged to serve, I have not considered the political party nor the identity of the president who made the appointment.And that has led me to vote for justices who are more liberal than I am, such as Justice [Elena] Kagan and Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor, who were nominated by President Obama.It has also caused me to vote for Justice [Samuel] Alito, who is more conservative than I am.But all of them were within the mainstream of judicial thought.Each of them was highly qualified for the position.And I was convinced that all of them would respect precedent, the rule of law, and the role of an independent judiciary.
Allegations by Christine Blasey Ford
When you hear of the allegations by Dr. [Christine] Blasey Ford, what was your thinking about what should happen in the committee?
I read the redacted letter that Dr. Ford sent to Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein (D-Calif.) just as soon as I learned about it.I received a call from the Judiciary Committee staff, and I read the letter that day.It was redacted.Her name did not appear, and there were some details that were redacted in the letter.But I was very concerned about the allegations, which were extremely serious.It was clear that she had asked that her identity be kept from the public, that she did not seek the limelight.And I think it was disgraceful that someone leaked her identity to <i>The Washington Post</i>.
And let me add that I do not believe that that was Sen. Feinstein who did that.I have a lot of respect for Sen. Feinstein.She’s told me she did not do it, and I believe that she did not.But someone betrayed the trust of Christine Blasey Ford, and I think that was despicable…
So when I read the allegations, I was very concerned.I had—I was at the stage where I had completed most of my review, not all of it, but most of my review of Judge Kavanaugh’s record during his 12 years on the circuit court.I assembled a team of 19 attorneys, many of them from the Congressional Research Service, who are nonpartisan, to help me go through his decisions, his law review articles, his speeches.
So I had largely finished my review of his record, and I had spent two hours and 15 minutes talking with the judge, asking him tough questions.So then this bombshell letter drops and sends the nomination process into a tailspin.The very next day, after I read the then-redacted letter, I talked to Judge Kavanaugh.I had some additional questions that I wanted to ask him about his record, but I of course asked him about the allegations in the letter.I asked him whether they were true, whether there was any truth in them.He was emphatic in his denial.I then asked him if he had any idea who would have made the allegations, or why they were made, and he said that he did not.
Then that Sunday, the story broke in <i>The Washington Post</i> identifying the individual.And I felt, at that point, once Dr. Ford’s identity became known, that the only option was for the Senate Judiciary Committee to convene and have a hearing in which both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testified at length under oath.
After she spoke—we've asked everybody this question—then there's a break.But after she spoke, what were your thoughts?
I had found what she said to be very painful.I was convinced that she had been sexually assaulted, but I did not know for certain who was her assailant.I felt that she was traumatized and that it was a huge burden on her to come forward and that she was indeed frightened.I felt bad that her family wasn’t there with her to support her, that her parents and her brothers—and I thought that was odd.But I found her to be credible in asserting that something terrible had happened to her.
Do you think that—some people we’ve talked to say that when Brett Kavanaugh comes out to speak, (a) he’s speaking to an audience of one, Donald Trump, and (b) he had to be forceful.He had to be different than he’d been on the Fox News interview.He had to defend himself in a way, but not go too far.Give me your reaction to him coming out and how you judged his performance.
I thought about all that the judge and his family had been through.Keep in mind that the allegations were not those just of Professor Ford’s.He had been accused of drugging teen girls and participating in gang rapes, an allegation for which there was absolutely no substantiation, an outrageous allegation but one which his young daughters had heard.So I was not surprised that he was both anguished and angry.I think that’s a normal reaction for a human being who’s been accused of absolutely despicable heinous crimes to have.And I felt that he went too far in his exchanges with senators, such as Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), for which he later apologized.But I thought his testimony was powerful and what you would expect from someone who had been through what he had been through.
It was very telling to me, when he was asked if he had known what he was going to go through and what his family would be put through, including death threats directed at his wife, would he have accepted the nomination.And he said no.That to me was very telling.And it worries me, again, it concerns me that good people, having witnessed the spectacle, the hardship, the allegations, are going to refuse to serve our country.They're just not going to want to go through that.
The FBI Investigation and Delayed Vote on Kavanaugh
After that hearing, the next day Jeff Flake interacts with a woman.I guess he’s on the elevator.The committee itself is in great chaos.Flake this morning told us a wonderful and kind of humorous, in some ways, story of him trying to call you on the telephone and all the other senators being around.Take me there, will you?
Well, we finally connected, and we did talk.I had been trying to call him.I had talked to Lisa Murkowski very early that morning, around 7:00, as I recall.And then I was trying to reach Jeff Flake, and I was trying to reach Joe Manchin.Meanwhile I'm watching television, and it’s utter chaos at the committee.And he and Sen. [Chris] Coons (D-Del.) are talking about their next step.
We had been having a series of meetings and phone calls.I think I talked to Jeff Flake every single day.And he said to me on the phone, “What would you think if I said that I'm not going to vote to report the nominee until we reopen the background check that the FBI has conducted?”And I told him I thought that was an excellent idea, that I would support him.He said that he felt it should be time-limited, and I said I felt there was no reason why it could not be time-limited, given the precedent of the background check of Anita Hill’s allegations only took a few days.So we talked about that, and he very courageously went ahead and made the proposal to the committee with Sen. Coons, and I immediately publicly said that I supported it.
Then later that day, Sen. McConnell gathered us in his office, along with some key members of the Judiciary Committee, to talk about the FBI investigation, because what many people don’t understand is to reopen the background investigation—and there had been six previous investigations of Brett Kavanaugh—required a request from the White House counsel.So that’s what we were talking about.And we were talking about how important it was that all of the people who were named by Professor Ford should be interviewed.All of the people whom she said could verify her account needed to be interviewed by the FBI.
I also felt that the incident alleged to have happened at Yale should be investigated as well.And I later also pressed for if the FBI—I thought this was implied—but if the FBI found other people as a result of interviewing the people named by Professor Ford, that those individuals should be interviewed, too, and they were, contrary to what had been reported, there were not just four people interviewed.
Right.
Now, those interviews are classified, but I read each and every one of them, and there was no corroborating evidence for what Professor Ford said happened that night.In fact, her best friend said that not only did she not recall any party or any incident, but she did not even know Brett Kavanaugh.Now, I do want to make clear, again, that I do believe that Professor Ford had a traumatic sexual assault and that it upended her life.But we have a presumption of innocence in this country, and we cannot dispense with fairness the presumption of innocence and due process just because passions are inflamed.In fact, it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.
Voting Yes on Kavanaugh
You were—let’s talk a little bit about the politics of this now.Does McConnell reach out to you during the whole process?Does he ever reach out to you?Is he checking with you to see where you are and take your temperature?
No.I think we had only two conversations during the process.I think that Sen. McConnell respects the fact that I make up my own mind.And in fact, I did not tell him of my decision until, by chance, I ran into him in the Senate Dining Room the day that I made my floor speech.And that’s when I informed him and Sen. [John] Cornyn (R-Texas) of my decision.
How did it go?What did you say?
I told them that I’d actually come into the Senate Dining Room seeking a quiet place to make still final edits on my speech—I was up until 2:30 a.m. the night before still working on it—and they invited me to join them for lunch.And I think they were all exercising great control.Now, I had voted for cloture, but there are times when I have voted for cloture so that the full Senate can vote on a nominee, an up-and-down vote, and voted no.So probably they were pretty sure how I would vote, because I voted yes for cloture, but they were not certain.And so I told them that I had decided to vote for Judge Kavanaugh and that I felt that it was the right thing to do.
And how did Sen. McConnell—
I think he was relieved, because as I said, we had not had those discussions ongoing.
And the stakes are very high for him and the Republicans and the president at this moment.How high were the stakes?
Well, the stakes are high for everyone when you're dealing with a Supreme Court nominee.That’s a lifetime appointment to the highest court in our land.So from my perspective, it is always a high-stake vote when I'm confronted with that kind of choice.
And it feels like it’s a legacy issue to him.We’ve tracked his district court judges, the Federalist Society growth, the appeals court judges, the now two Supreme Court justices.And this is, as you’ve just said, this is the court for a generation or two.
And that’s why I personally took so much time and spent more time than any other senator, I'm told, talking personally to Judge Kavanaugh.I spent over three hours talking with him, two hours and 15 minutes in person and an hour on the telephone.And it’s why I had briefings every other day.I read so many of his decisions and his speeches, and asked him very tough questions about whether he had made any commitments to the president or the Federalist Society or the White House counsel or anyone else about how he was going to vote.So I think that this was an important decision for each and every senator.
Talk to me about your personal—there's stories I've read about protesters literally threatening you, on you.What is that like, Senator?
It’s very difficult and trying.I expect criticism.But the lack of civility, the death threats, the profanity that was directed at both my staff and me, was very difficult.I received a fax in which the person threatened to cut off my arms and legs and slit my throat if I voted for Judge Kavanaugh.One evening here in Washington, I worked late until 9:30.I was driving home alone.My husband was in Maine.It was pouring.And there was a man who had been waiting for hours outside of my townhouse who started screaming at me, shone a flashlight in my eyes and started a recorder.There were protesters every Sunday for seven weeks at my personal home in Washington.
My staff members were threatened with rape.I was threatened with rape.The number of death threats, the names that I recall, were unlike anything I have ever experienced.But I feel most bad that my staff had to endure that.And I will never understand why those who felt strongly against the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh thought that threatening me, attempting to bribe me by raising $2 million before the vote and saying that if I voted yes, they would give it to my future opponent; if I voted no, it would be refunded.That’s a quid pro quo for an official act and is clearly wrong.After the vote, they raised another $2 million, which is fine and their prerogative.But this was more intense than anything I have been through.And it was so intense that the Capitol police, in its Threat Assessment Division, decided that I needed enhanced security.
Latest Interviews
Latest Interviews
Policies
Teacher Center
Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation
Koo and Patricia Yuen
FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
