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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#571

Post by slg »

giantg2 wrote: post #487
slg wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but this is wildly naive. It isn't "likes" that are causing the problem. It is things like the fact that one side appears to be in the early stages[1] of a UN defined genocide[2]. I'm not going to be friendly to you if you think lower taxes or some other excuse is more important than the human and civil rights abuses that party supports. [1] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/17/hyster...…

Both sides abuse civil rights when it suits them. Uninformed sterilization has happened in the past in this country too. Look at doctors at some Native American reservations. It's quite abhorrent to stereotype an entire of party based on the sensationalism of an extremely small subset of actors. Also the 'band wagon' effect is a widely documented cognitive bias - so there is merit to the idea that "likes" can create…

>It's quite abhorrent to stereotype an entire of party based on the sensationalism of an extremely small subset of actors.

Meanwhile the president was just on a stage in Minnesota talking about "racehorse theory"[1]. His biographer has previously described it as follows: "The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development. They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring."[2]

I don't know where I would get the idea that he is in support of eugenics.

[1] - https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1307124621389463553

[2] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-tru...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#572

Post by redler »

dmode wrote: post #542
ghufran_syed wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why wouldn’t the Republicans do the same thing next time they win an election? Or would the Democrats somehow guarantee that never happens again?

There are ways to do it. Expand the court and then pass a legislation banning court expansions without supermajority

If Democrats gain power, nothing changes unless they frame their opportunity as "what would Mitch do?"

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#573

Post by _qulr »

rayiner wrote: post #451
notafraudster wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is, in fact, the actual practice. The constitution splits the appointment between the presidency and the senate. When the same party controls both, vacancies are filled immediately. Otherwise, the party controlling the senate can exercise its heckler’s veto: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid... What happened with Garland had happened numerous times before: > In short: There have been t…

Can we please stop talking about "precedent" when the last time was over 150 years ago?

For some perspective, there were only 31 states at the time.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#574

Post by macintux »

sterlind wrote: post #560
macintux wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Clinton tried to thread that needle with the safe, legal, rare triad. I wish we could try that again.

I grew up in high school with abstinence-only sex ed, rare access to birth control and a bunch of rumors about "pulling out" and period sex preventing pregnancy. No condom lessons at all, just scare videos on STIs. A number of teen pregnancies happened in that school, though I only knew the ones carrying to term.

I've tried, but I can't respond without ranting in rage. The system is terribly broken.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#575

Post by 1024core »

tyre wrote: post #86

For every one of the coming takes that Republicans will be hypocrites to appoint and confirm a justice (which they will) They do not give a fuck. That’s not how they see power and it is why they have a far disproportionate share of power/representation than their support across the electorate. This is about power. In politics, nothing else matters.

> They do not give a fuck.

Why would they? There are no consequences to bad behavior!

Republicans push tax cuts through for the wealthy, leaving the country deeper in debt. So what do Democrats do when they get back in power? Let those cuts stand!

Imagine, if, for every Republican shenanigan, their price to pay would be much higher than any potential gains. They would think twice about being assholes then. But as things stand, they suffer no consequences! So why would they ever change??

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#576

Post by RickJWagner »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #474
malandrew wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it though? Most people are more politically center and the extremes of the political spectrum keep trying to pull politicians towards the extremes. When that failed to work, they started pulling out the "you're either with us or against us" card forcing people to pick sides or be ostracized if they risked being nuanced.

Politics and media have become extreme because they are dying "industries." The internet has (pardon me) disrupted both of them. Severely. They crank up the hyperbole in order to try to justify the need for their existence. That cycle can't go on forever. In fact we see the results weekly. For example, politicians aren't moving the needle so more and more people resort to protesting (and yes, rioting). I'm not an adv…

I started agreeing with you when you said politicians were failing people.

I disagree sharply about the riots, though. I think bad actors use things like social media (and even traditional media) to whip people into a frenzy. That's where the violence comes from, and it is rooted in politics more than a reaction to it.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#577

Post by _qulr »

rayiner wrote: post #398
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_...

That is not the precedent: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid... > History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the…

I read it. The last time was over 150 years ago. Stop pretending this is a common occurrence.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#578

Post by abawany »

mrkstu wrote: post #566

For those so certain that the Republican Senate is going to ram though someone, there are a few moderates left, and they've already decided thing can wait until after the election: "So far the following GOP Senators have pledged that they will not consider a Supreme Court appointment until after the next inauguration. Susan Collins Chuck Grassley Lisa Murkowski" [0]: https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1307115333669580…

Hope you're right: https://www.axios.com/trump-ginsburg-supreme-court-10bf5f37-... . The threat of withholding money if they don't comply has got to be pretty effective to bring any independent thinkers in line.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#579

Post by gonesberg »

mythrwy wrote: post #562
organsnyder wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how broadly the United States exerts influence around the world, I feel obligated to stay and work to make things better.

And there is the right answer. If you are an American and you are professing hate for America (as many in this thread are) I feel bad for you. This is my home and I love it here. America has made mistakes, it will make more, it has corrupt people, evil people, good people, inventive people, thieving people but it's contributed quite a lot to this world socially, technologically and in many other ways. I find this ent…

Well, this is just how much of the rest of the world sees your country, and in particular, the people who run it.

It's basically just the warmongering, racist bully of the world. Widely hated, much despised.

You might be proud of the USA thanks to your indoctrination, but that's just blinding you to how horrible it is.

Not that I would expect any better from your foul nation. It was literally built on genocide and the racist enslavement of your fellow humans. You should be howling in shame, not pride.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#580

Post by Rebbitor »

neffy wrote: post #512
taurath wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the catalyst, it's the accelerant - when you have 1000 points for your troll post you're sure as heck gonna do more of them.

That's the basic problem. All the motivation and encourgement is towards extreme, attention grabbing content.

I am sorry that you are unaware of life before the internet. People have been trolling each other before the internet. A well known troll was sending packages that exploded on people. In fact I think we have gotten a lot more civil lately. Exploding packages sounds a lot worse and uncivil than your comment internet trolling and uncivility.
Post reply on HN