Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died • Hacker News Board

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#871

Post by rendall » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 4:52 AM UTC

goldcd wrote: post #585

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…

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…

"Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for"

That's me! I'm in that creed.

People associating their identity with their politics is when trouble starts. That's when it becomes really threatening for them to even consider alternate perspectives, because if they change their mind, they will change who they are and who they can be friends with.

It's possible to separate the two, whereby an idea on how society should be organized is just that: an idea, to be considered, adopted, discussed, and abandoned as new information becomes available.

One really poisonous idea I see circulating is "either you are for or you are a " Either you support riots or you are a fascist Either you punch Nazis or you are one Related, just as terrible, "Time for discussion is over. If you're on the fence at this point, you are " These kinds of memes increase polarization, and stop discussion. A person who says something like that can no longer have a calm exchange of ideas with their grandma

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#872

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 4:55 AM UTC

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #788

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…

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…

> If listening to someone's opinion is actively causing emotional harm, then sure, don't listen to them.

I think that might be the most important time to listen to them. If merely hearing an opinion threatens your model, that’s probably a warning sign indicating that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable, and they need to be exposed to ideas that challenge them. Engage with painful ideas, break your own models down and reformulate them into something more robust. I think the unwillingness to do this is what leads to the problems you mention.

I’m reminded of “The Coddling of the American Mind”

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#873

Post by ModernMech » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 5:01 AM UTC

jariel wrote: post #393

kelnos wrote: post #195

Here's my prediction: Trump will nominate a successor in the next couple weeks. McConnell will start the process, but delay the vote until after the November election. This way: If Trump wins, McConnell can say that he was entirely reasonable and consistent, and he waited until after the election to ensure that the people really wanted Trump's SCOTUS nomination to be confirmed. If Trump loses, McConnell still has the…

A political showdown over the nominee would very well be the decisive moment of this campaign and determine the presidency. The Dems took a huge risk with Kavanaugh going after the way they did (allegations against an 18 year old at a party where technically nothing happened???) but were saved by a a deeply emotive testimony by a woman who pulled a lot of heartstrings and came off credibly. That was an incredible ris…

> Also - merely making a nomination makes Trump look strong. Winning a competition against Dems - which I think he can because he has the votes - looks strong. I don't see any way for the Dems to win with this unless Trump nominates a total fool.

The conventional political wisdom after Kavanaugh was that Democrats would be demoralized for the 2018 election and would fail to retake the House. What actually happened was one of their biggest House wins ever.

> Trump is flirting with the same poll numbers Hillary had las time and Biden is not a strong candidate ... this is not a good position for the Dems to be in.

Kind of? There's no Johnson this time getting 8% of the vote (at this point in the race), so that group is dispersed between Trump and Biden. So while Trump is about where Hillary was at this point, Biden is cracking 50% in national polling on average, which is much higher than Clinton in 2016 and definitely not good for Trump.

Biden is much stronger than Hillary at this point, especially in swing states like Florida, where he is polling well with older voters (a complete flip from 2016, where older voters in Florida went decisively for Trump). If you look at Clinton's support in Florida it looks like a sine wave over the race. Biden's support is much more steady, so that is a difference. Biden wins Florida and it's over.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#874

Post by int_19h » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 5:03 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…

The reason why this is not transferable to the Democrats, is because they haven't previously refused to hold confirmation hearings for an appointee solely on the basis that there'd be an election later that year.

If you're asking whether Democrats would have placed themselves in a similar position in 2016 if the roles were reversed, then the answer is no. I'd expect them to consider the nominee, and quite likely vote against - but they wouldn't stonewall until election.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#875

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 5:03 AM UTC

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.

The far, far worse problem is the extremists propensity to take everything as bad faith, no matter how genuine.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#876

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #717

RickJWagner wrote: post #565

RBG was also the voice of reason when Justice Kavanaugh was under attack by an unhinged mob. She truly could see beyond politics, and will be missed by both sides of the aisle.

I really don't believe legitimate criticism is problematic and it is very problematic to call people who speak out an "unhinged mob" Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath.

No, he didn’t.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#877

Post by hypersoar » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 5:13 AM UTC

hajile wrote: post #556

WhompingWindows wrote: post #318

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?

Given the appointment age of most justices, 20 years and life aren't much different. Furthermore, lots of justices resign a couple years before death. RBG was practically begged to resign, but alternately believed Hillary would win and/or thought she could outlast Trump. The idea is similar to tenure. You can do and say what you believe without influence and pressure from either party. It also dodges influence peddli…

Given the appointment age of most justices, 20 years and life aren't much different.

The last 4+ justices appointed were in their 50s. Gorsuch was 50. A top name on the short list both times was Amy Coney Barett, 48. They've been grooming a 38 year-old, Justin Walker, for the court. He went from a few months of litigation experience to the federal bench to the DC circuit in a year.

Notice how all these people also look very healthy? They're trying to get people who will last a lot longer than 20 years.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#878

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 5:14 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#879

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 5:15 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #245

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…

Although the justices being friends is inevitable, it is not desirable. The justices would be more representative of the people - and probably dispense better justice - if there was an uneasy compromise between them based on basic principles of precedent and law. That isn't a very fun vision of life on the bench - and any system is imperfect - so I don't really advocate that. But the idea that these people are assert…

No, it’s a beautiful thing. The country would be far better off if we treated each other this way. In many other countries, this is the norm. Maybe you can learn something from your elders.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#880

Post by manquer » Sat, Sep 19, 2020, 5:15 AM UTC

bargl wrote: post #460

ng12 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely because the founding fathers didn't expect the justices to be split on party lines. They were intended to be impartial judges ruling on a limited set of federal laws.

I would assume also because people also just didn't live as long back then. Life was in general a 20 year term. Average life span in 1800 of 50 years. Today it's 78.6. https://clickamericana.com/topics/health-medicine/us-life-ex... https://www.everydayhealth.com/senior-health/what-life-expec... Those probably aren't the best places for me to get numbers, but I think they're good enough for a rough example of what I m…

Average life expectancy is really a bad metric .

It is not like people dropped dead at 50. People who survived usually hit their 70s even when the expectancy was in 30s and 40s. The average is low because lot of kids and people died young.

The proper metric here would be life expectancy of active lawyers/judges in their 30s and 40s . They have double advantage of both generally surviving all the diseases till then and wealthy and educated enough to afford medical care available.

Even if the idea was that people may not survive long, it is a unpredictable and inconsistent way to set policy.