(CNN) On Friday, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Susan Collins expressed her utter shock and dismay.
"This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon," the Maine Republican Senator said, in part.
But, all the way back in 2018, Collins had an exchange with CNN's Jake Tapper that presaged exactly what happened on Friday. Here it is (bolding is mine):
Tapper: So, you will not support anyone who has demonstrated hostility towards Roe v. Wade, but there are plenty of justices that The Federalist Society and other experts likely think will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but they don't have a record of hostility towards Roe vs. Wade. 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?
Collins: 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. There are many judges who have said to me that, if you are not unhappy with some of your decisions, then you're not a good judge. I think judges have to have the ability to put aside their personal views, and rule on the facts of the case with fidelity to the law and the Constitution.
Tapper: I don't have to tell you this, but you're going to get a lot of pressure from groups and individuals who support abortion rights. And one of the things that they think about you is that you get played by these judges and that, ultimately, if you vote to support whoever President Trump nominee -- nominates, presuming that person comes from this list of 25, that one of your longest-lasting legacies is likely going to be that you voted to confirm a justice who ultimately tipped the balance of power, political power, on the court and voted to overturn Roe.
Collins: Well, I know that's what the left is saying.
It's a little on the nose right? I mean, Tapper, who, yes, is a colleague (obviously), predicted exactly what was going to happen. EXACTLY. And Collins either didn't want to or didn't see that reality.
She didn't just vote for Gorsuch, either. In October 2018, Collins was the 50th vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the highest court. In a long statement she delivered on the Senate floor in announcing her vote to confirm Kavanaugh, said this on Roe:
"There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article III of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent "is not just a judicial policy ... it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent." In other words, precedent isn't a goal or an aspiration; it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances."
Collins voted against the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in October 2020 -- but not because of the justice's stance on Roe. Collins said she objected to replacing a Supreme Court justice so close to an election.
The simple fact here is that Collins was questioned, repeatedly, about whether just taking the nominee's word for it was enough when it came to Roe. And she insisted that it was. She got that one wrong. Big time.