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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#811

Post by jb775 »

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_...

The Senate wasn't setting a precedent, they were simply blocking the nomination from the opposite political party....as is their right.

Would have played out the exact same way if political tables were turned.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#812

Post by NateEag »

sagichmal wrote: post #726
Infinitesimus wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

This is true, but it depends on the topic. If I have a very strong opinion about the ineffectiveness of the Laffer curve when setting tax policy, I can probably be pretty good friends with somebody who believes the opposite. But I think it probably is important that we don't remain friends with people who deny other people's essential humanity, or who support political policies that have no effect other than to hurt…

Daryl Davis has converted a lot of KKK members away from racism by risking his life to befriend them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis

How many people have you seen converted from dangerous beliefs by isolating them away from dissimilar thinkers?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#813

Post by knightofmars »

blhack wrote: post #780
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_...

I'm curious: does anybody seriously think that if the positions were reversed that the Democrats would honor this? Let's say that Biden wins, then Trump runs against him again in 2024. Somebody dies or retires right before the election, do you think the democrats would seriously wait and risk allowing the nomination to be done by Trump? None of these people are in any way signaling their actual virtues. It's all just…

Possibly. There is a level of accountability that seems to happen with the Democratic party. Not to say absolutely but it has happened.

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusation...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#814

Post by andkenneth »

seibelj wrote: post #178
theshadowknows wrote: post #162

Absolutely. My family is feverishly working on how to leave this hellscape of a country we’re in. The United States is dead.

I’m sad to say you may find the grass is always greener on the other side - government corruption exists everywhere that government exists.

Sure, but I could name many countries that are not nearly as bad as the USA is now. The same could be said comparing the USA to say, Belarus. Both are bad, clearly Belarus has much worse corruption.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#815

Post by [deleted] »

ekianjo wrote: post #757
altcognito wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He revoked the transparency surrounding drone strikes, so you don't know how often they happen. He pardoned war criminals found guilty by our own military courts. He is setting up companies to steal oil from Syria and has always stated that we would be fools not to take those military earned resources. The state kills unarmed people in the US everyday, I see drone strikes in war zones as as far tinier issue than all…

> He pardoned war criminals found guilty by our own military courts. I am unaware of that, do you have any reference?

[deleted]

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#816

Post by cortesoft »

hajile wrote: post #414
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.

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

He tweeted it today

https://mobile.twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1307121192516...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#817

Post by munificent »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #800
sophacles wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mi…

> 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.

It took me a long time to realize this, but I don't think "bad faith" or "cynicism" is the right way to look at how these Republican politicians are behaving. Both of those terms still imply a certain level of respect for the humanity of the other party and a desire to create some consensus, even if through subterfuge.

No, the Republicans are acting like Democratic politicians are enemies in war. It's not "cynical" to hide information from or mislead the enemy. It's just battle tactics. They aren't trying to reach consensus, they are trying to destroy.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#818

Post by goldcd »

Igelau wrote: post #765
ctdeneen wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But with the internet much more of what you do is visible and more people know about it. What you said could be attacked with "white silence is violence"

Speech isn't violence. Lack of speech isn't violence. People lazily regurgitate these postmodernist bumper sticker phrases and consider themselves informed activists.

I would politely disagree (and happy to talk about it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

I think speech can definitely lead to violence - and speech can also counteract it. Neither directly, but the delta has real-world repercussions.

Or to look at it the other way - can you come up with an example of violence, that wasn't preceded by rhetoric?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#819

Post by hapless »

ghufran_syed wrote: post #263
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.

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?

Nothing. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

One party coalition has demonstrated they will do ANYTHING for power, and now there are very few good choices available.

Either respond in kind, or face permanent defeat

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#820

Post by zaroth »

haberman wrote: post #700
erichocean wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Where does this end? What keeps this principle from extending to a President's entire term, as opposed to just the last year? If Democrats ever retake the Senate, why should they ever hold hearings for a single Republican judicial appointment, let alone confirm one? Should judicial appointments just sit vacant until president and Senate are from the same party? I think it's a perversion of the "advice and consent" la…

At first I read your comment as “What keeps this principle from extending to a President’s entire team” and I recalled that Trump’s cabinet appointments were notoriously slow to get through the Senate, held up even by a Democratic minority.
Post reply on HN