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

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#161

Post by theptip »

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_...

From the article:

> Asked what he would do in circumstances like these, McConnell said: "Oh, we'd fill it." [the supreme court seat]

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#163

Post by geofft »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #88
bleepblorp wrote: post #41

I think we can all be certain that whoever is appointed by the Federalist Society and approved by Mitch McConnell will make sure Trump wins a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth) term. The American experiment as a free and democratic country is over. Unless you want to live in a real world version of The Handmaid's Tale, get the fsck out if you still can.

Stop with these kind of comments. Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term? “We can all be certain” should be translated to “I feel like making a crazy rant here”. “Experiment is over” - the election is in 7 weeks, let’s hold off on the “get out while you can” comments until it’s over. How confident are you in your statement that the “American experiment is over”? Care to bet…

> Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term?

Why wouldn't they? They have nothing to gain from opposing it, and much to lose.

I mean, do you honestly think the United States Postal Service would dismantle its own machinery and send out misinformation about elections?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#164

Post by [deleted] »

ncallaway wrote: post #145
dexterdog wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that was a republican senate that had the power to confirm or not. Now you have a republican president and senate so if they want to ram somebody through they can do that.

They can do it. But the very same Senate Majority leader set the precedent to not confirm appointments in an election year. If McConnell violates this precedent that he set, I would strongly advocate for Democrats (whenever they have the Senate) to remove the legislative filibuster and increase the size of the SCOTUS to 17.

[deleted]

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#165

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

throwaway6000 wrote: post #77
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time? absolutely. It only takes an hour or two. Will they do it? maybe? probably.

The Republicans will absolutely do it. This is their chance to mold our country's sociopolitical landscape for decades.

I think it hinges on their (Trump, really) confidence on winning in November. No reason to do it now if you're sure you're going to win. No reason to worry about possible repercussions in the form of lost voters if you're sure you're going to lose.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#166

Post by mcphage »

jlawson wrote: post #140
nscalf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a laughable inability to distinguish between 'I don't like it' and 'it's unconstitutional and illegal', mixed with obvious massive hypocrisy. When the Republicans refused to confirm Garland, they did it fully within the processes laid out in the constitution. If the Democrats had the senate now, we can guarantee they would have blocked every Trump nominee past and future. Or do you think they would have allow…

> but if elected Republicans simply use votes to do the same thing it's "no regard for the constitution".

They didn’t use votes. If it had gone to vote, Garland would have been confirmed. McConnell refused to bring it to vote.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#168

Post by tootie »

bargl wrote: post #46
michaelmcdonald wrote: post #5

For as worthless as this comment will ultimately be: my thoughts go to her family.

I hate that it's become bad to send people your thoughts and prayers. It may not do anything, but to have meant so much to so many people is something worth thinking about.

It's only bad if you're doing it when you have the option of doing something helpful. Like politicians offering prayers for tragedies that are the result of bad public policy.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#169

Post by failuser »

koolba wrote: post #54
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.

The distinction being that the opposition controlled the senate under Obama and he was too weak a president to take up the case that he had a right to have his nominees even considered. They didn’t just stop him from picking a justice, he abdicated his power by not pushing back.

I wonder what the “strong” president would do there. Threaten to unleash a plague on Kentucky?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#170

Post by tomrod »

juniper_strong wrote: post #87
nscalf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you think Obama asked the Republicans in the Senate for their advice on who to nominate when he nominated Merrick Garland?

Time for some history. The GOP senators never expected a moderate like Merrick Garland, who was named by senators in the news before Obama announced his confirmation.
Post reply on HN