Live data from Hacker News

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

npr.org

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#791

Why are there life-terms on the Supreme Court? Doesn't that incentivize the justices to hold on past their prime, dying waiting for a new president or resigning in a politically motivated fashion? And don't life terms create a race to the bottom where younger justices are favored for longer remaining life? Why not 20 year limits?

SC Justices were not expected to be so powerful.

The founding fathers thought that the US constitution would look like the UK. President = King, Congress = Parliament. The judiciary was practically an afterthought, and like UK courts, would be subordinate to Congress. “ In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Note the “such exceptions and under such regulations”.

As history turned out, Congress has barely used this power to rein in the courts and in the mid-19th century on the courts grew more and more powerful and have become a sort of mini-legislature.

James Madison already recognized this, writing in 1788 that he realized a mistake had been made in the constitution: “ as the Courts are generally the last in making their decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary Dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper ... ” (https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s25...)

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#792
post #735
post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was so lovely after reading the article, that the point that stuck with me, aligned with your comment right at the top. Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for. ~" We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come…

That kind of collaboration can’t exist if there are two sides who believe that most issues are zero sum.

I have no evidence for the following statement, but as someone who grew up just before social media was a thing (I became a legal adult about a decade before Facebook), I truly feel that the zero-sum thinking, while present before social media, really took on a new form because of it. It is much more vehement than before. You don't get the same kind of interaction on a forum or a bulletin board that you do on Twitter or FB or [modern social network].

When I was growing up, there was no Fox News channel nor any of the cable news channels (I remember when MSNBC was a brand new thing). News was something you watched for 1 hour in the evening.

24 hours news + trench digging/tribalism have done a horrible number on modern discourse.

Thing is, I think that that's because before, there WAS no discourse, not really. It was slower. Most of the conversation was had by those you watched on TV. Alot fewer people participated. The internet DID democratize that, with frankly predictable results.

Not saying we should have done differently but I do think we need to come to terms with what that means (e.g. realizing it's forcing us into zero-sum thinking and consciously choosing something else).

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#793

It's depressing how much better Republicans are at politics than Democrats are. Because of that, they will get their way.

It's past time for Democrats to stop "taking the high ground" and acting like their policies actually matter. Moral victories are hollow when your democracy is being gutted.

Sometimes I read comment sections on conservative websites. They say the exact same thing except with the parties reversed.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#794
post #552
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.

Or maybe present a better alternative that gets people to vote for your side? Your party aggressively screwed over a candidate who could have energized the base and still would have captured 99.99% of the center in a trade for a principle-less barely coherent snooze fest of a human being who would toe the old party line and then you claim the only remedy is to play as dirty as the other side? Excuse me for not buying…

Bernie? He lost to Hillary by almost 4 million votes, then lost to Biden by 9 million votes (The largest margin since 2004) - how is that motivating the base.

He's a protectionist idealist who the republicans were dying to run against because they knew he'd be easier than Biden.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#795
post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was so lovely after reading the article, that the point that stuck with me, aligned with your comment right at the top. Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for. ~" We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come…

I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this reasoning to abuse me, then I may be ethically correct to not listen or keep myself in their presence. Or, say, I'm a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may be actively em…

I have no idea what your point it, but you may want to add one more example. Let's say I am a Trump supporter and the opinion is that I am a scum and should die before the election, then it may be ethically correct not keep myself in their presence.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this reasoning to abuse me, then I may be ethically correct to not listen or keep myself in their presence. Or, say, I'm a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may be actively em…

If someone is expressing a good-faith opinion then you shouldn't write them off just because you disagree. Of course, "good faith" is a subjective judgement. Over time I've come to realize that usually there's a legitimate reason why someone believes what they do. Often they are either optimizing for different things, or view the matter differently. If listening to someone's opinion is actively causing emotional harm…

I agree it has become difficult to talk to people with different political opinions than my own. I just think the statement suggested was logically too strong, and entirely non applicable in very important failure modes. There are often legitimate reasons why someone believes what they do, but sometimes the belief is "I think there should be no consequences to murdering someone like you, because you're not worth the social resources you take with your disability", which was a belief expressed to me, and I need to protect myself emotionally from people who genuinely believe I should be dead.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#797
post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 signifi…

> It's fairly irresponsible... It shows poor judgement. I think it shows she was as hungry for power as anyone else. "In 1999, she underwent major surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation to treat colon cancer. Ten years later, she was diagnosed with early stage pancreatic cancer, for which she also had surgery. In 2014, she went to the hospital after suffering chest pains during one of her famous workouts and discovered…

[deleted]

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#798
post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gene…

Again, you are using the statements/actions of an extremely small subset to stereotype an entire party (tens or hundreds of millions of people).

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this reasoning to abuse me, then I may be ethically correct to not listen or keep myself in their presence. Or, say, I'm a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may be actively em…

I have no idea what your point it, but you may want to add one more example. Let's say I am a Trump supporter and the opinion is that I am a scum and should die before the election, then it may be ethically correct not keep myself in their presence.

I mean, honestly, yes, if someone wishes your death I don't know if it is healthy to expose yourself continually to their opinions that you should die. That's emotional abuse.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#800
post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Senate Leader McCconnell has said as much: https://apnews.com/84003fe2f5c8d910afda84d2b33f19be

A man literally arguing against himself.

The frustrating thing about the center is the propensity to take things at face value, no matter how bad faith. It has been patently obvious for decades that the Republican party plays by a thoroughly cynical playbook. A credulous centrist elite accepts each new plot twist as the status quo, after a genteel interval of whining.

Enough is enough. People in favor of good governance need to end a system that allows a minority of voters to elect a President. That allows a minority of voters to elect a Senate majority that represents a minority of citizens. That allows a minority of voters to elect House majorities. That refuses the franchise to largely minoritized citizens of DC, Puerto Rico, and the other teritories. That does not allow the present and formerly incarcerated to vote. That allows unaccountable moneyed interests to blast the electorate with propaganda. That has, as a final check, a court of 9 life appointees.

For a long time, the country managed to float by on tradition, but our refusal to build a modern government is presently our downfall.

Post reply on HN