Expel 1 Senator

[MarkD]

There's lots of Senators to dislike, and previous posts in this thread have mentioned some good ones who deserve to be expelled. But I am going to mention the one Senator that I dislike the most and whom I most want to expel and that's Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

[MarkD]

There's lots of Senators to dislike, and previous posts in this thread have mentioned some good ones who deserve to be expelled. But I am going to mention the one Senator that I dislike the most and whom I most want to expel and that's Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

How come? Why do you dislike Chris Murphy so much?
What about Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson - who objected to the results of a democratic election and wanted the result overturned, and who tried to minimise the danger of a deadly pandemic? (Murphy didn't do either of those things, by the way.) And also, who are the other "good ones who deserve to be expelled?"

Sorry for the delayed response. I decline to answer who are the other Senators who I think ought to be expelled. My previous post was only meant to convey the idea that there were several answers given already in this thread that I agree with. But I will not name any other Senator than Chris Murphy because this thread says to name 1 Senator we would like to expel. One. Uno. Un. Eins. The fact is that I dislike the vast majority of the U.S. Senators because 98 of them are either Democrats or Republicans (and I'm not even fond of the two independents either). I no longer vote for either D nominees or R nominees for the U.S. Senate; I only vote for third-party or independent candidates. The U.S. Senate has become far too partisan. I wouldn't mind so many Ds and Rs so much if most of them were ideologically moderate, but with virtually all of the Democrats so consistently liberal and so many of the Republicans so consistently conservative, the Senate has become as partisan as the House, and that's not what our Founding Fathers intended.

The reason I dislike Chris Murphy the most has to do with two things he has said, one of which was idiotic and the other was demagogic. In this video,
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1514088615289290&id=908009612563863
... at approximately 40 seconds into the video, Sen. Murphy inaccurately described Gorsuch as an "originalist" and then gave an utterly ridiculous description of what originalists do when they interpret the Constitution. I shouldn't have to explain how stupid of a comment that was.
And the demagogic thing he said was in a tweet last summer:
https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1299701890322706432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1299701890322706432%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftalkelections.org%2FFORUM%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D391775.0
Sen. Murphy could not think about the possibility that Trump is simply suspicious about the risks of COVID spreading. According to Murphy, Trump completely agrees with Dr. Fauci about how easily COVID is spread and Trump wants COVID to be spread so that his own supporters will die.

[MarkD]

... at approximately 40 seconds into the video, Sen. Murphy inaccurately described Gorsuch as an "originalist" and then gave an utterly ridiculous description of what originalists do when they interpret the Constitution. I shouldn't have to explain how stupid of a comment that was.

I agree that Gorsuch isn't an originalist, but he's indisputably conservative in orientation and aligns with them a bit too often for comfort. "Originalism" is at any rate a nakedly partisan, opportunistic, and inconsistent philosophy once you strip away the veneer of preserving a certain conception of how documents should be interpreted, and while Murphy's comments were quite hyperbolic the spirit isn't too far off the mark in all honesty.

"Inconsistent": I'll grant you that, but so is everybody else's judicial philosophy. "Partisan, opportunistic," "veneer": you're as bad at not knowing what you're talking about as Sen. Murphy.

Sen. Murphy could not think about the possibility that Trump is simply suspicious about the risks of COVID spreading. According to Murphy, Trump completely agrees with Dr. Fauci about how easily COVID is spread and Trump wants COVID to be spread so that his own supporters will die.

This essentially concedes that Trump was acting against the scientific consensus and putting people at risk, but you're brushing that off over semantics.

Semantics?
Okay, I'll admit that maybe I took Sen. Murphy too literally. Maybe I should assume that he didn't mean precisely what he said. After all, he's a politician and a lawmaker. As such, I believe that I should interpret Sen. Murphy by what he intended to say rather than what he literally said. Gee, that sounds like the judicial philosophy of original intent.