Politician suicide watch. Which Senators will destroy their careers over Justice Gorsuch?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by danpass, Feb 1, 2017.

  1. danpass macrumors 68020

    danpass

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #1
    There are 33 Senate seats up for election in 2018.

    23 are democrats!

    10 of those are in states Trump won!

    Who will torpedo their career? I hope McConnell stalls the nuclear option as long as possible to force these Senators to expose themselves.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/306210-10-senate-seats-that-could-flip-in-2018

    This is the list from the article:

    1. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)

    2. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)

    3. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)

    4. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

    5. Dean Heller (R-Nev.)

    6. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)

    7. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

    8. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

    9. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

    10. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)
    --- Post Merged, Feb 1, 2017 ---
    Yep, I said JUSTICE Gorsuch.
     
  2. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #2
    Associate Justice
     
  3. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #3
    Well it sure did not hurt old mich even after he said it was because the NRA would not like it.
     
  4. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #4
    Manchin already said he won't filibuster.

    My question is of the 23 Democrats up for reelection, how many of them voted for Gursuch in 2006? I know a few who did including:

    Obama
    Biden
    Schumer
    Reid
    Durbin
    Feinstein

    Plus some more. If he was ok then, why is he not OK now?
     
  5. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #5
    Yes, lots of Democratic Senators are about to destroy their own careers. Only to rise phoenix-like again from the ashes, as support for Trump and his policies inevitably wanes, and it turns out those who stood up to him regain the favor of the voters...
     
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    None. Given there was no affect for those who didn't support Garland on the other side.
     
  7. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #7
    the lack of support for him was well played. there was ZERO reason for them to support him. Obama was out, everyone knew it and thus the next move was to wait to see who was in next. why even waist time with hearings? it was a well played political move that the dems have done in the past too.

    the dumb move made by the dems was not to encourage members of SCOTUS to retire while they were the ones in control. instead they are now faced with the potential that Trump could get 1 or 2 more shots at placing judges. IMO they were so so so in belief that they couldn't lose that they overplayed their hand and are now just pissed because of it. Ginsberg should have retired while Obama was at the helm.
     
  8. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Apart from precedent...
     
  9. Khalanad75 macrumors 6502

    Khalanad75

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    Location:
    land of confusion
    #9
    I'll take a stab.

    It's been 10 years and his judgments since then can be looked into to determine if the were "right". They can also look into how the man has changed. 10 years is quite some time.

    Also, an office of a higher level takes a lot more scrutiny.
     
  10. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #10
    how many times for a lame duck president?
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
  12. uknowimright macrumors 6502a

    uknowimright

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    #12
    man that's a lot of bs
     
  13. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #13

    Only six in lame duck status like Obama and the last one was back in the 80's with Reagan.

    Back to Obamafail, there was no smart political reason to let him pick it so the right just sat on it. Good move. They leveraged that opening to force evangelicals and others who were keen on seeing a conservative on the bench to get out and vote. That's why Trump leveraged it so hard and put his list out early.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 1, 2017 ---
    Feel free to discredit my points.
     
  14. uknowimright macrumors 6502a

    uknowimright

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    #14
    I may have to draw you some pictures
     
  15. jerwin macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #15
    As judges move up the food chain, they assemble more of a published record of opinions. Their judicial philosophy becomes clearer and clearer.

    Take John Roberts, for example. He sits on the Supreme Court, so regrets are just that: regrets.

    Jeffrey Toobin profiled Roberts for the New Yorker in 2009.

    At the time of his confirmation hearing, John Roberts was regarded as, for the most part, inoffensive.

    But in 2009, he could be characterized as someone with a particular thumb on the scale.

    Now, I realize that Toobin's criticism is a a liberal criticism. Conservatives who despise Roberts probably have quite a different take. And perhaps he has matured since 2009.

    But it's fair to take a close look at Gorsuch's appellate record, and decide on the basis of that record whether Gorsuch is likely to damage the interest of one's constituents. One should remember that the Tenth circuit covers a limited geographical area (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming), so Senators outside that area might not feel that they have much skin in the game--it's mostly Republican leaning, though throwing the citizens Colorado and New Mexico to the wolves might also be bad politics. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the entire US, so a different calculation applies.

    Moreover, the Republicans in the Senate have shown that Constitutional hardball is a winning political strategy. Rolling over for the benefit of one's political enemies is not in the best interest of Democrats.
     

Share This Page