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

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#411

Post by tyre »

zanny wrote: post #249
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.

Obama didn't assume anything. He was a senator for 12 years (federally for 4) and had plenty of experience by that point to know how partisan legislative bodies are and how members will die for their parties perceived glory. I don't believe for a second that in the aftermath of Clinton's impeachment & Gore's 500 vote loss in the state being governed by his opponents brother with tens of thousands of votes lost or mis…

I agree on Obama. Biden played a large part as well.

Remember that they got rid of a public option in negotiations to win Republicans over. And got zero Republican votes.

Obama was many things, but he was not good at congressional politics. He saw himself as about the fray, and it showed.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#412

Post by pandaman »

notafraudster wrote: post #156
alex_young wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 immediately clarified his position was "the Senate shouldn't consider a nomination in an election year if it's controlled by my party and the president isn't in my party" -- no kidding, this was his actual clarification.

And he just cited the position Joseph Biden asserted in 1992, no kidding: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-arg...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#413

Post by Kranar »

mmaunder wrote: post #13

Worked right to the end even with her health challenges. What a role model.

I disagree entirely and in fact most of the rest of the world have laws against Supreme Court Justices serving well into old age like this. Her health problems were known during President Obama's term and it was nothing more than hubris on her part to continue serving.

It's fairly irresponsible to work until the day you die if a sudden death can have absolutely devastating and life changing consequences for a significant number of people.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#414

Post by hajile »

notafraudster wrote: post #156
alex_young wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 immediately clarified his position was "the Senate shouldn't consider a nomination in an election year if it's controlled by my party and the president isn't in my party" -- no kidding, this was his actual clarification.

Source?

(Not saying you're wrong. If I repeat something, I like to have direct sources)

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#415

Post by intended »

op03 wrote: post #261
renewiltord wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What. People were acrimonious in the medieval ages. They didn't have like counts. This is such total bullshit.

I have seen it with friends busy bashing each other on Twitter/FB but being able to reconcile on a Whatsapp group or a private meeting. Its not that on Whatsapp groups some members of the group aren't entertained by a good fight and goad/encourage both sides. Its that when its private and social status and social signaling is less of a priority and people you trust/respect can step in and cool things down and refocus…

Maybe people are now, more often than not, talking to Human nodes in a network, and the network outperforms you in presenting data that will match a confirmation bias.

So it would imply that you can reason with an individual who isn’t acting as node.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#416

Post by erichocean »

paxys wrote: post #33
bonzini wrote: post #8

Of course a president should not appoint a judge on the last few months of his term, should he?

He ideally should be able to, as long as the correct procedures are followed. Republicans, however, set the precedent by not allowing Obama to appoint one in his last year in office. My money, however, is on them ramming someone through anyways.

> He ideally should be able to, as long as the correct procedures are followed.

Part of that procedure is having your party in charge of the Senate at the time of said nomination. Obama did nominate someone, he simply could not get him confirmed. That's on Obama (and Democrats more generally).

Trump will also nominate someone, and because his party has a majority in the Senate, that nominee will likely be confirmed whether Trump wins the upcoming election or not.

I am 100% certain that if Obama had a Democratic Senate majority when he nominated Merrick Garland, his nominee also would have been confirmed. (As a registered Democrat myself, I would have demanded it.)

There is no other precedent here: you accomplish in office what you can (procedurally) accomplish. Trump lucked out here; Obama didn't.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#417

Post by bleepblorp »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #302
smcameron wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution means what the Supreme court says it means. Doesn't have to make sense.

Ok, are you honestly saying that you think a majority of the Supreme Court justices will rule against a direct and clear Constitutional Amendment just to help a President that has no control over them or their jobs? Has this post really gotten to this point, that we’re just posting crazy claims without any merit or knowledge or research at all? Isn’t HN better than this?

A Republican USSC throwing out the constitution, and the principle of democratic fairness, to put a Republican in the White House is not without precedent.

Al Gore legitimately won the 2000 election. The USSC prevented him from taking office.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#418

Post by ixtli »

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_...

This is America there is literally nothing stopping anything from happening if you wield power.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#420

Post by yyyk »

nsajko wrote: post #330
rezendi wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is amusingly silly. Changing the composition of the Court is not unheard of and FDR, not exactly known as the poster child of "destroying the legitimacy of Constitutional government," nearly did it in 1937 (and likely would have if not for another untimely death.) https://today.law.harvard.edu/if-democrats-win-in-november-s...

Consider Maduro (Venezuela). He and his government are enduring all kinds of enormous attacks from all around the ("Western") world and horrible malicious interference by USA, but the only thing that we know of that Maduro's side did wrong (arguably) was packing the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?...

"Venezuela: UN report urges accountability for crimes against humanity"

“The Mission found reasonable grounds to believe that Venezuelan authorities and security forces have since 2014 planned and executed serious human rights violations, some of which – including arbitrary killings and the systematic use of torture – amount to crimes against humanity,” said Marta Valiñas, chairperson of the Mission.

“Far from being isolated acts, these crimes were coordinated and committed pursuant to State policies, with the knowledge or direct support of commanding officers and senior government officials.”

Post reply on HN