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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#921

Post by Aeolun »

cm2187 wrote: post #906
jandrese wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think McConnell has a shred of honor or cares one whiff about not being a hypocrite I have a bridge to sell you.

If you think McConnell has a monopoly on hypocrisy I have a bridge to sell you as well. McConnell took both sides of the argument (delay when convenient, expedite when convenient), the democrats opposed him on both occasions. If this was a moral discussion, then both parties are equally guilty of hypocrisy. Now if you think that political appointments are a moral matter rather than a balance of power within the const…

I think the problem is that you cannot use one strategy one time, and another the next. If he’d elected to delay like before, nobody would have complained. If he’d not sabotaged the last nomination, nobody would have complained now either.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#922

Post by Aeolun »

jb775 wrote: post #811
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_...

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.

I think the political tables have been turned that way quite a few times, but it never happened until that time.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#923

Post by bryanmgreen »

dmit wrote: post #134
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…

The relationship between RBG and Scalia served as inspiration for one of the most beloved post-Sorkin episodes of The West Wing. The Supremes, 5x17.

For all the crap the non-Sorkin episodes get, that episode should be in the Hall of Fame for TV. Both the script and acting are of the highest caliber.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#924

Post by Aeolun »

thesagan wrote: post #625
minimaxir wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a normal government, precedent would likely be followed. This is not a normal government.

Actually, I think this is now normal in the U.S. and should be expected going forward. From both duopoly parties. Power grabbing is the game.

Of course. If it’s clear that the other party is not playing by the rules, there’s very little reason to keep to them yourself.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#925

Post by chillwaves »

gamblor956 wrote: post #723
mrkstu wrote: post #566

For those so certain that the Republican Senate is going to ram though someone, there are a few moderates left, and they've already decided thing can wait until after the election: "So far the following GOP Senators have pledged that they will not consider a Supreme Court appointment until after the next inauguration. Susan Collins Chuck Grassley Lisa Murkowski" [0]: https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1307115333669580…

Huge caveat: of those 3, only Murkowski actually made her statement after RBG passed. Collins made her statement hypothetically earlier in the campaign, and Grassley made his hypothetical statement back in 2018 during that election cycle. So far, Murkowski is the only confirmed GOP defector, and 4 total defectors are needed to prevent nomination hearings before the election.

3 will be allowed to defect and Pence will be the tie breaking vote.

All of this is coordinated, all of this is staged.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#926

Post by notahacker »

cm2187 wrote: post #902
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.

I don't know that in the current political climate, the democrats would extend the same courtesy if it happened under their control of the Senate and White House.

Sure, but the argument that the Senate shouldn't approve or even consider a Supreme Court nomination in election years because voters should have a voice was made by Mitch McConnell, at a time when not approving a presidential nominee suited him.

I don't think anybody can argue in good faith that it is equally incumbent upon the Democrats to act in a manner consistent with principles argued for and precedents set by Mitch McConnell.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#927

Post by Aeolun »

int_19h wrote: post #883
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine a 4-4 Supreme Court deadlock in a Bush v Gore type situation?

Can you imagine a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, where the breaking vote comes from a judge appointed by the candidate whom the court declared the winner?

Guess it’s back to civil war then.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#928

Post by Aeolun »

enjeyw wrote: post #917
Aeolun wrote: post #916

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my problem with statements like this, is that while I can totally imagine the liberals I know taking this viewpoint, there are very few conservatives I know that do. The response will be something like: “Why would I listen to these whiners? I already know what I want.”

Yeah, the reality is that "listening and respecting the opinions of people whom you disagree with" (or not) is an ideology in its own right. One would hope that it'd be orthogonal to conservatism/liberalism or any other political spectrum, but I suspect it's not.

In some respects it is, it’s just correlated I’d say.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#929

Post by tiziniano »

rendall wrote: post #871
goldcd wrote: 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…

"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, w…

I think you hit it right on the head. What I'm wondering now is: What leads to this association of politics and identity? Is it a product of our culture, upbringing, is it human nature? Is it that modern life has so little avenue for people individuating? Maybe it is filling a void.

One thing that strikes me as key to this polarization is how pervasive are some generalizations we make today and how the individual is lost when we make them. I've seen racists make the comment "Black people are ...." (won't repeat that here) but then I see activist say "Black people are (ex. disadvantaged.)" Are there no quite privileged black people? (millionaires, billionaires, etc) Don't lower class people face a pretty similar set of challenges no matter their skin tone? When you look at it, both arguments are generalizing equally as aggressive. My question then is: are all generalizations wrong or only some?

I think this process of grouping people has ome currents of thought tend to generalize two aspects to it, people who group other people when making statements and people who in some search of uniqueness, group themselves into it? As a non-American, coming from a very heterogeneous country I find it hard to follow how many people will self-identify so readily with a group and in the process lose some of their individuality. Maybe I speak from "privilege" as someone who due to upbringing and origin, felt a quite distinct individual, so I cannot say for sure. I just think this currents of thought harm more by dividing into groups and with many individuals satisfying their need of identity there.

Post reply on HN