Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died • Hacker News Board

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#821

Post by dvrendal » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 3:39 AM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #590

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_...

Yeah no way this matters to the current generation of Trump supporters. His second in command, McConnell, is probably calling an emergency session tonight to get the votes he needs to put in someone to end Roe v. Wade, as it is probably the most symbolic victory of women against the white male patriarchy since the birth of the USA (and suffrage) and it must not stand.

Yes the greatest victory of women against the white male patriarchy is winning the right to murder their own unborn children

/s

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#822

Post by rayiner » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 3:40 AM UTC

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…

Why would anyone believe Democrats would behave differently after they spent all of last year again threatening to pack the Supreme Court?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#823

Post by runawaybottle » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 3:41 AM UTC

tus88 wrote: post #522

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…

I wonder how friendly they would have been if Scalia had managed to overturn abortion.

Lol. Why are you downvoted here? It’s like some people want to constantly paint the world like the end of a Disney movie where it turns out every character was really good deep down inside.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#824

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 3:44 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #755

mcphage wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people from this administration ended up in jail? And how many from the last? You can feel whatever you want, but the math isn’t in your favor.

How many people were killed by wars started in the previous administration? I'll let you ponder on that.

[deleted]

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#825

Post by IncRnd » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 3:45 AM UTC

emmelaich wrote: post #630

Only after reading about this did I realise that RBG was Catholic. There would have been a lot of familiarity of thought and philosophy in their backgrounds. In some part, it makes it easier to disagree. Some of the arguments have been going on for centuries.

Only after reading about this did I realise that RBG was Catholic

RBC was raised Jewish. Later, after her mother passed, she became non-observant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#:~:text=Al....

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#826

Post by dvrendal » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 3:46 AM UTC

nscalf wrote: post #30

xwdv wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He absolutely should it is his job.

Since you clearly don’t get the context, the Republicans made this a giant issue when Obama had an open Supreme Court seat towards the end of his term. Let’s call a spade a spade: the republicans have no regard for the constitution or laws of the land if they benefit from ignoring it. They will now ignore the precedent they set and place a new Supreme Court justice.

Precedent doesn't mean anything because what happened wasn't a legal ruling. None of the rules changed. Senate acted the way it was allowed to and will act the way it is allowed to now as well to get our guy in and keep their guy out.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#827

Post by anm89 » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 3:47 AM UTC

mhh__ wrote: post #794

anm89 wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not a Bernie supporter. Just pointing out that the party repeatedly screws itself over.

Also just because a person loses a primary does not mean they are they weaker candidate in the general election. The math can easily go the other way.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#828

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 3:47 AM UTC

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

#829

Post by IncRnd » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 3:48 AM UTC

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_...

That does not form a legal precedent. What you refer to was a political move and not a legal action. The Constitution governs this, not how people previously voted or blocked votes.

I believe the first time a SC nominee was blocked was Roger Taney in 1835. This is politics and happens, as a general principle, regularly by both parties.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#830

Post by TeaDrunk » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 3:49 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #807

KittenInABox wrote: post #764

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…

It's easy to come up with these kinds of excuses for not tolerating the opinions of people you disagree with. If you disagree with me about abortion, you are either trying to murder babies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil to you) or you're trying to control women's bodies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you). If you disagree with me about health care reform, that's a life and death issue and hence…

I think this is an easy handwave to ignore that some people get more disagreement than others about whether or not they deserve civil rights, life, etc. While you espouse a need to listen, you’re not really listening at all here or even trying to understand what is being said.