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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#961

Post by koolba »

jasonlotito wrote: post #860
koolba wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s talk like this that truly disgusts me. And it only comes from the left. Anyone in a position of power that effectively promotes opposing views is labeled as pure evil. The more effective, the more evil. Just because your side is losing does not mean the other side is working for Satan. It’s talk like that that leads to violence.

> Just because your side is losing It’s talk like that that leads to violence. It’s talk like this that truly disgusts me. And it only comes from the right. So much for united we stand. There is only one side: American. And if someone is causing half of America to lose, is actively working to make that happen, I'd say that's evil. Wouldn't you?

[flagged]

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#962

Post by pattrn »

Aeolun wrote: post #916
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…

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.”

That type of response may result more from lack of education than from political ideology. Where I live, there are a fair amount of educated liberals and conservatives. I run into liberals and conservatives alike who give a similar response to what you listed; I also run into liberals and conservatives alike who have wonderful conversations about politics without getting riled up. From my observations, there doesn't seem to be a correlation with political ideology.

I'm curious to know how frequently you have encountered one of your liberal friends debating with an educated conservative. Likewise, I'm curious to know how frequently you've encountered one of your conservative friends debating with an educated liberal. Over the past couple of years, I've run into a number of people who simply couldn't believe that an educated liberal/conservative existed, primarily because they grew up in an area where there weren't many people with differing political views. It's a dangerous trap to fall into, because it allows you to categorize the other political party based on only the rhetoric of elected officials and on the interpretation from media. I have yet to meet a conservative or progressive who matches the caricature of either portrayed by politicians or entertainers.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#963

Post by efreak »

malwarebytess wrote: post #804
glenstein wrote: post #392

I wonder if he will go down in American history as a more poisonous senator than McCarthy.

I don't know what you could call his brand of governance other than pure evil. It's men and women like him who destroy nations and stir violence.

This is how I learned that being in Congress means immunity from being fired for literally not doing your job. Regardless of your views, you shouldn't be refusing to help keep the government functioning.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#964

Post by ianai »

dillondoyle wrote: post #936
ianai wrote: post #31

I mourn her loss. She’s done more for my life and the average americans life than quite a significant many. Extremism in any shape breeds further extremism. I hope society is about to do a “big blink”. It only takes a majority in the senate and house to add a seat to the SCOTUS or a state to the union.

DC, Puerto Rico statehood please! Guam too?

I wish the US were thinking bigger than just those.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#965

Post by Hnrobert42 »

teruakohatu wrote: post #790
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #712

There is nothing good left in this world. I don’t plan to kill myself, but I don’t see much value in living.

Sounds like you are depressed. You should talk to someone about it.

Thank you. I concluded the same and have begun to look for a therapist. RBG has been a hero of mine for 15 years. The impact of her death was my first thought when Trump won. For me, at this time, the glass has 10% of its capacity. But I will find help to see that as 10% full.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#966

Post by Trasmatta »

jariel wrote: post #409
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #62

The potential ramifications of this are chilling. If the Republicans mishandle this, it could drastically increase the chances of widespread conflict around the time of the elections.

Widespread conflict will get Trump elected, this is already proving the case as people see 'violence' instead of 'protesting' Trump is getting momentum. Don Lemon on CNN literally asking for people to calm down due to this fact. Edit: Trump's support grew consistently as public support for BLM waned in face of the 'perception of violence' [1] - which Trump's team sees and is why he's pushing a 'law and order' message…

> this is already proving the case

Except it doesn't seem like the violence and rioting so far has actually helped Trump:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-law-and-order-me...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#967

Post by UncleMeat »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #803
michaelmrose wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably best to not dig into the details too much since this thread isn't about that, but I personally absolutely understand why they characterized it as an "unhinged mob", given you had a very transparent attempt to fabricate a life-altering rape claim in order to hold up a nomination. I watched every minute of the hearing, read the memo released by Rachel Mitchell (the lawyer hired by the Republicans to ask questi…

> not the kind of thing you stay silent about for decades

It is precisely that kind of thing. I know several women who have done exactly this, even including hiding abuse from their parents.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#968

Post by LatteLazy »

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?

The constitution doesn't specify how many justices there are. Or what the criteria should be for appointment. It isn't even clear who appoints/confirms them.

There are a lot of unplugged holes in the constitution. This is just another issue...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#969

Post by geofft »

tus88 wrote: post #499
geofft wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems unlikely - at the ACLU she wrote an amicus arguing that giving benefits to wives of male soldiers but not husbands of female soldiers was unjust and the husbands should be entitled to the same benefits ( https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1694 ), and last year's federal case National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System ruled, based on the precedent she set in that case, that the male-only draft was un…

About the only thing that has in common is it's military related.

It's more relevant that it says that it's unfair when women are given rights that men aren't.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#970

Post by ncallaway »

liquidise wrote: post #403
tmountain wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court via a bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. So we'd need the presidency, a majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate to invoke cloture to end the inevitable legislative filibuster from the Republicans. So even with a blue wave in November, that's not possible because it is extraordinarily unlikely that we gain a super…

Who is "we" in this comment? Democrats? Not Republicans? Progressives? While your comment is both technically and strategically correct, this sort of binary "us vs them" mentality has caused america such harm and always strikes me as somewhat reductionist. I wish more focus would be on policies and individuals instead of D vs R (as if greens, libertarians, socialists, etc simply do not exist in america's 300M+). Perh…

I strongly agree with your desires, but I've also been sucked into the D vs R world lately. While I've always been politically left, I despise the 2 party system.

I'm of the opinion that a first past the post and winner take all voting system will almost always produce a 2 party outcome. As such, until we change the voting system I've decided to stop considering myself independent and throw in with the party most closely aligned with my views.

I don't think your imagined future is impossible, though! I just think it's heavily discouraged by our voting system. We can change our voting systems, though. I'd really strongly encourage you to check out and support Ranked Choice Voting (or other proposed voting systems). I don't think it's a silver bullet, but I think RCV would go a long way to breaking down the 2 party system

Post reply on HN