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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#351

Post by ncallaway »

tmountain wrote: post #329
ncallaway wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it's time to fight back. Make it absolutely clear to McConnell and Democratic leaders in the Senate that if McConnell fills this seat in an election year, then the Democrats must increase the size of the SCOTUS. McConnell needs to fear the reprisal more than he fears the delay. Because you're right, this is about power. Nothing else matters to them. So make them fear this.

You can expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court via a bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. So we'd need the presidency, a majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate to invoke cloture to end the inevitable legislative filibuster from the Republicans. So even with a blue wave in November, that's not possible because it is extraordinarily unlikely that we gain a super…

> The only other option to pass such a bill in the Senate would be to gain a Senate majority and use that Senate majority to end the legislative filibuster, which is the last filibuster anyways.

This is what I call for in another comment. There's no way to get a supermajority in the Senate, so the legislative filibuster would have to die.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#352

Post by tomjakubowski »

cwhiz wrote: post #293
jcalvinowens wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It only takes a majority in the senate and house to add a seat to the SCOTUS Exactly. If Biden wins and the senate flips, they'll just add two justices (for 11 total) to get a majority. The right will scream bloody murder, but won't be able to do anything about it.

The Senate doesn’t actually have to vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice. > and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court There is nothing except precedent to say the President can’t just directly appoint justices. And then when the appointments are inevitably challenged, who would ultimately rule on it? The Supreme…

Proposed patch: in cases like this where all of SCOTUS has an obvious conflict of interest, the decision is made by a single judge who is elected to an N year term by a national popular vote for only this purpose. Democracy saves the day?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#353

Post by kenjackson »

tmountain wrote: post #329
ncallaway wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it's time to fight back. Make it absolutely clear to McConnell and Democratic leaders in the Senate that if McConnell fills this seat in an election year, then the Democrats must increase the size of the SCOTUS. McConnell needs to fear the reprisal more than he fears the delay. Because you're right, this is about power. Nothing else matters to them. So make them fear this.

You can expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court via a bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. So we'd need the presidency, a majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate to invoke cloture to end the inevitable legislative filibuster from the Republicans. So even with a blue wave in November, that's not possible because it is extraordinarily unlikely that we gain a super…

But then get rid of the legislature filibuster after they've used it. The Senate will probably tend GOP, so make sure it is weaker.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#354

Post by papeda »

refurb wrote: post #270
Trasmatta wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are there two posts right next to each other with the exact same first sentence? > This turn of events means a likely ossification of American policy for a generation. This was also posted by: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24522964

I’m guessing they both read a Vox article that used that word and thought it sounded smart?

Googling "ossification of American policy for a generation" returns one result, this thread.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#355

Post by tmountain »

rootusrootus wrote: post #183
dexterdog wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that was a republican senate that had the power to confirm or not. Now you have a republican president and senate so if they want to ram somebody through they can do that.

The next logical step is that the Democrats will flatly refuse to confirm any future Republican nominee for SCOTUS, regardless of what year of the President's term it is. Partisan politics is tiring. The US is steadily becoming more and more mediocre while the rest of the industrialized world improves, because we are focused more on winning petty battles than improving our nation.

In this case, it's about the preservation of our democracy (Trump has already indicated he will contest the election), so I don't think "petty" is the appropriate term.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#356

Post by evan_ »

ghufran_syed wrote: post #248
mhh__ wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They do not give a fuck Something that the Democrats need to realize is that they (especially Obama) assumed too much good faith in the congressional GOP. You can stick to your principles while doing it but, when you are against a party who now considers its last nominee (Romney) a radical BLM leftist, when they go low you need to be ready to kick them in the head.

Democrat senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid first introduced a filibuster for judicial nominees, and then ending the filibuster for judicial nominees when it was politically convenient for them. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/mitch-mcconn... Do you think that might have affected the ability of the current president to successfully appoint a supreme court justice now?

Do you think the republicans would not have ended it for Kavanaugh?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#357

Post by Infinitesimus »

roenxi wrote: post #245
stickyricky wrote: post #37

I think reading about Ruth and Antonin Scalia's friendship was the most wholesome political reading I've ever done. Hearing people divided in opinion, but not bitterly so, working together to figure out the best framework to construct American society from was inspirational. I hope the two halves of the political world can become friends in the way they were. Rest in peace Ruth. I hope if there's an after you and Ant…

Although the justices being friends is inevitable, it is not desirable. The justices would be more representative of the people - and probably dispense better justice - if there was an uneasy compromise between them based on basic principles of precedent and law. That isn't a very fun vision of life on the bench - and any system is imperfect - so I don't really advocate that. But the idea that these people are assert…

It's quite possible to be friends who have strong, contrasting opinions. I'd argue the oppose that it is a desirable state for highly powerful people making decisions for the whole country because you're less likely be blinded by mindless us-vs them and give the benefit of the doubt the arguments and beliefs contrary to yours.

The inability to disagree in a mature way is why we have such a mess of identity politics, name calling and all sorts of division in many counties IMO.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#358

Post by jessaustin »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #243
baryphonic wrote: post #36

I mean, holy sh . This election is going to be insane.

Even if Trump loses, they will seat a Federalist ideologue who is as young as they can possibly find so that the effects will be felt for 30+ years.

So... Tom Cotton?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#359

Post by colinmhayes »

colordrops wrote: post #347
mhh__ wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They do not give a fuck Something that the Democrats need to realize is that they (especially Obama) assumed too much good faith in the congressional GOP. You can stick to your principles while doing it but, when you are against a party who now considers its last nominee (Romney) a radical BLM leftist, when they go low you need to be ready to kick them in the head.

This idea that either the Republicans or Democrats have faith or principles is absurd. The Democratic brand is one of principles and altruism, but their actions do not reflect this.

Wrong. Democrats are principled to a fault.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#360

Post by dehrmann »

moate wrote: post #281
quickthrowman wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mitch McConnell and Trump will have a replacement confirmed by the end of October.

Absolutely not. Why would Trump eliminate one of the biggest draws to electing him? If he pushes someone through before November, he absolutely loses the senate (assuming you believe the polls). No way those purple states with senators up for election are going to carry Republicans who went from "we don't vote for the USSC during final term years" to "RUSH THROUGH THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NOMINEE!" in 4 years. The move…

Interesting point. Trump and McConnell's interests aren't actually aligned, here. McConnell is up for reelection, ahead in the polls, and wants an inoffsensive conservative justice. Trump's behind, is more interested in his reelection than in getting a conservative justice on the court. He can't drag his feet too long or it will look like he's stalling, and he'd have to nominate a judicial version of Judy Shelton so he's playing to his base, but it's someone the Senate wouldn't approve. Or if they have someone they already vetted with skeletons in the closet that just haven't come out yet.
Post reply on HN