Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#121

Post by LegitShady »

tyingq wrote: post #97
atonse wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I respected and admired RBG, even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else. If things weren’t so polarized, they absolutely should spare no time in replacing the seat, as is their duty. But we know it’ll be yet another cynical and dishonest process as it was last time.

I'm somewhat curious how much deference and respect the administration will grant her. Basically how many days before they start pitching their nominee. Edit: Fwiw, the RBG movie about her is on Hulu now.

You know they dont respect her at all and they'll replace her as soon as feasible. This is a political win they can't ignore and people being offended won't change that in the least

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#122

Post by alex_young »

adzm wrote: post #26

> According to her granddaughter Clara Spera, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/13071014175225610...

There would seem to be precedent for this now.

Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scalia's seat had become vacant during an election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#124

Post by wilg »

awalton wrote: post #113
atonse wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I respected and admired RBG, even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else. If things weren’t so polarized, they absolutely should spare no time in replacing the seat, as is their duty. But we know it’ll be yet another cynical and dishonest process as it was last time.

McConnell says you never replace a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. Let's see just how long it takes him to release a public statement going back on that one...

> Mr. McConnell and his allies say the two situations are different. Where one party controls the Senate and the other the presidency, as in 2016, they say, vacancies should not be filled in a presidential election year. Where the same party controls both the Senate and presidency, they argue, confirmations may proceed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/justice-ruth-bader-gin...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#125

Post by geofft »

tus88 wrote: post #35

> That was never more evident than in 1996 when, as a relatively new Supreme Court justice, Ginsburg wrote the court's 7-to-1 opinion declaring that the Virginia Military Institute could no longer remain an all-male institution. True, said Ginsburg, most women — indeed most men — would not want to meet the rigorous demands of VMI. But the state, she said, could not exclude women who could meet those demands. What's t…

Seems unlikely - at the ACLU she wrote an amicus arguing that giving benefits to wives of male soldiers but not husbands of female soldiers was unjust and the husbands should be entitled to the same benefits (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1694), and last year's federal case National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System ruled, based on the precedent she set in that case, that the male-only draft was unconstitutional. The ACLU, along with a number of women's rights organizations, filed an amicus on appeal arguing that the ruling was correct. (The appeal was organized by a conservative group founded by Phyllis Schlafly.)

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#126

Post by gamblor956 »

awalton wrote: post #113
atonse wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I respected and admired RBG, even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else. If things weren’t so polarized, they absolutely should spare no time in replacing the seat, as is their duty. But we know it’ll be yet another cynical and dishonest process as it was last time.

McConnell says you never replace a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. Let's see just how long it takes him to release a public statement going back on that one...

He already has, in a talk at the Federalist Society last year, where he said that if given the chance to replace a SCOTUS justice in 2020 he would not hesitate.

EDIT: And again, just over an hour ago, McConnell promised that he would have a vote on a new justice within a week of receiving the nomination.

Meanwhile, Murkowski of Alaska announced she would not support confirmation hearings until after the election.

And in other related news, Senate Democrats have promised to add seats to the Supreme Court if they win the Presidency and Senate in November and McConnell goes ahead with his plans...

The next few months are going to be exciting.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#127

Post by HaloZero »

alex_young wrote: post #122
adzm wrote: post #26

> According to her granddaughter Clara Spera, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/13071014175225610...

There would seem to be precedent for this now. Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scalia's seat had become vacant during an election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...

McConnell has already stated that he will put someone up even though his logic would apply to this year.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#128

Post by kennywinker »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #92
nscalf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you clearly don’t get the context, the Republicans made this a giant issue when Obama had an open Supreme Court seat towards the end of his term. Let’s call a spade a spade: the republicans have no regard for the constitution or laws of the land if they benefit from ignoring it. They will now ignore the precedent they set and place a new Supreme Court justice.

It's more like the congress exercised there constitution power to do fuck all if they wanted. Just cause it's a shitty thing doesn't make it un-constitution. What happened to Obama was his party didn't have the votes to approve someone so it didn't happen that's it.

If they hold hearing for a 45 nominee before the election, they prove they were acting in bad faith. The expectation is that the president gets to appoint judges during his term, unless there is a reason to deny the nominee. By denying that they challenge the power of the executive branch. I.e. Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#129

Post by minimaxir »

alex_young wrote: post #122
adzm wrote: post #26

> According to her granddaughter Clara Spera, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/13071014175225610...

There would seem to be precedent for this now. Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scalia's seat had become vacant during an election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...

In a normal government, precedent would likely be followed.

This is not a normal government.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#130

Post by Kattywumpus »

If Trump and the Republicans confirm a new Justice, Democrats have indicated they will pack the Supreme Court, appointing as many Justices as they feel necessary to get the rulings they want.

"If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can't feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that's fully constitutional in our availability," he said. "I don't want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that."

-- Tim Kaine, D-Va, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-war...

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are interpreted through the Supreme Court. If you pack the court, you have essentially destroyed the legitimacy of Constitutional government. The consequences of this cannot be overstated.

All Constitutional rights will be up for reinterpretation and elimination. This is a very precarious moment in history. Perhaps the end of American history as we have known it. That's a grandiose statement, but it's not an incorrect one.

Post reply on HN