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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#671

Post by [deleted] »

erichocean wrote: post #416
paxys wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

[deleted]

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#672

Post by ck2 »

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…

inspirational? it was her greatest weakness, there was not any other single judge working harder against her

I'm not going for the nazi reference, he wasn't that evil but Scalia was literally trying to drag the United States back to the 1950s if not even further, decision after decision he never found an expanding right he didn't want to slaughter

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#673

Post by erichocean »

phobosanomaly wrote: post #650
erichocean wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both Bush and Trump were not elected by a popular vote. Neither was Clinton. Sometimes it goes your direction, too.

Clinton carried the popular vote in both 1992 and 1996. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia... If you're talking about Hilary, the majority of Americans did vote for her, not Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... Edit: As erichocean pointed out, I am incorrect. Although Hilary received the most vo…

43.0% is a plurality; a majority (57%) of people voted against Bill Clinton in 1992.

But you knew that.

Clinton also failed to get a majority of the votes in 1996, as did both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#674

Post by thysultan »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #165
throwaway6000 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republicans will absolutely do it. This is their chance to mold our country's sociopolitical landscape for decades.

I think it hinges on their (Trump, really) confidence on winning in November. No reason to do it now if you're sure you're going to win. No reason to worry about possible repercussions in the form of lost voters if you're sure you're going to lose.

Depress your opponents base and deny them a divisive issue to campaign on.

It would be a perfect game theory move to do it, no merit in holding out.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#675

Post by tinalumfoil »

elbigbad wrote: post #592

This won’t happen. I’m a reasonable person and happy to change my mind with evidence, and don’t say this lightly, but the republicans do not give a crud about any of this. They are the most conniving and soulless individuals that exist. This is coming from a recent former republican. I miss George Will’s Republican party.

> They are the most conniving and soulless individuals that exist

The Trump Republicans are far better in terms of war crimes. Not "better in terms of war crimes" is some sort of crowning achievement, but its hard to get much lower than srone striking Americans on foreign soil. To say Trump isn't an improvement over Busch just boggles my mind.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#677

Post by jakelazaroff »

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…

The link does not support your claim (or its own). The Senate did not consider and reject Merrick Garland, it refused to consider any Supreme Court nominee by Obama.

Of course, I'm splitting hairs between "refused to consider" and "voted against". But it's similarly splitting hairs to say that the party of the president makes meaningful difference as well.

Frankly, there's no good faith interpretation of McConnell's stance here as anything other than (ab)using his power to shape the judiciary.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#678

Post by dbingham »

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…

The National Review became dishonest propaganda some time ago. They are going back 150 years to find a precedent and ignoring many more recent precedents.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-i...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#679

Post by DabbyDabberson »

Trasmatta wrote: post #233
spiritplumber wrote: post #98

This turn of events means a likely ossification of American policy for a generation. Much like in Iran, you risk ending up with a "council of sages" who is out of step and out of touch with the will of the people. I say "you" because I can go elsewhere. My extended family wishes for me to return to Italy for my own safety.

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

all the comments are gpt 3 generated.
Post reply on HN