Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dianne Feinstein has died

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 377 posts

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#221

Post by AnimalMuppet »

sangnoir wrote: post #92
Larrikin wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a rewrite of history. She was basically trapped in the job when the Senate refused to appoint Obama's pick to fill the vacant seat of Scalia. If she had retired it would have just been two empty seats for Trump to fill quicker. People were actively asking her to stay in the job. Feinstein was a democratic senator in a democratic state with a democratic governor. She was actively being told she was unfit. She…

> This is a rewrite of history Obama met her when Democrats had a majority, and IIRC obliquely inquired/suggested that she retire and she brushed it off.

If I understand correctly, court tradition is that only a Supreme Court justice can suggest to another that it is time for them to retire.

Obama may well have been right. But the suggestion should have come from one of the other liberals on the court. (And it may well have, for all we know. But we wouldn't hear about it one way or the other.)

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#222

Post by SamPatt »

hobotime wrote: post #57
anonymouse008 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage you to run a campaign, just in a local county. You will find there are things one can't see from the outside that make this sentiment naively false.

I ran for a city councilmember: 1) You opponents campaign manager will lie about their candidate without qualms. 2) Donors will give money to a scoundrel, as long as they think the scoundrel will win. 3) Voters are actually good at picking up bullshit - in aggregate. 4) Rich white liberal female voters will not vote for a man. 5) Plenty of Black, Asian, and Immigrant voters are conservative, but many reflexively vote…

That doesn't sound even the tiniest bit fun. I'm genuinely curious about what made it fun, presumably something you didn't mention?

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#224

Post by krapp »

flagrant_taco wrote: post #168
bombcar wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we've seen is term limits just result in the "party machine" really running the seat, as the warm body is replaced time and time again. Term limits are effective against populists, for whatever that's worth.

Term limits definitely come with very real tradeoffs. I'd argue, though, that if the machine is that corrupt it doesn't matter what we do with politicians. What you're describing sounds to me like the politicians are inconsequential puppets and the machine must be limited or removed. I could a tuallg get behind that idea, it wouldn't take much to convince me that term limits don't go after the real problem.

Maybe we should consider a less violent version of what Thomas Jefferson wanted and just replace the entire government, top to bottom, every 20 years. On top of any other term limits or whatever - just periodically reset everything for the current generation.

Maybe that would even include a Constitutional convention. I've long been of the opinion that we should be updating the Constitution more often, and more easily. It isn't intended to be frozen in amber.

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#225

Post by giantrobot »

alistairSH wrote: post #71
bhouston wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If voters were unhappy with Feinstein's performance (or that of her key aides), the solution was as simple as voting her out. Often these incompetent people are in "safe seat" regions. Either heavily democrat or republican. Voters won't switch parties just because representative is incompetent. There should be another options.

Feinstein was a Senator and CA uses a "jungle primary" for state-wide elections - there's no "safe seat" in that model. In her last election, both final candidates were Democrats. Neither party could unseat her. Voters have been clear that they preferred Feinstein to anybody else. So the question is why? Was it her power in the Senate? Was she particularly good at bringing pork to CA? Or was it just money and the pol…

Rank in Senate committee is literally about seniority. Replacing Feinstein meant the state and Democratic Party losing power in the Senate.

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#226

Post by dundarious »

ImHereToVote wrote: post #198
unmole wrote: post #191

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Soviet style gerontocracy is a fairly new phenomena.

And our gerontocracy is actually substantially older than theirs was.

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#227

Post by ativzzz »

bhouston wrote: post #19
hirundo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say we have a professional psychiatrist, or a whole board of them, evaluating the mental competence of candidates. Occasionally they would designate one as incompetent, who would then be removed from the election. This would seem to be less democratic rather than more. The voters have less options than before, so the shift in power is from voters to experts.

There is no way to make it politically neutral and hard to game? I guess that would lead it to be more biological based? So at least age limits are something everyone can prepare for and expect, rather than it being a surprise?

> There is no way to make it politically neutral and hard to game?

No. Psychiatry, like politics and law, depends much on the personal beliefs of the human in charge. Look at our supreme court. Justices are supposed to be impartial, but they still tend to decide cases based on their political leanings.

That's a feature, not a bug, of being human.

Do we really want political games around deciding who is fit or unfit for office? I can 100% guarantee that this will cause more shit-slinging from both sides at each other than meaningful action

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#228

Post by yboris »

jliptzin wrote: post #23
bhouston wrote: post #6

She was mentally unfit to serve for the last couple years. It was a travesty many countries seem to have no mental bar required to serve or even reasonable age limits (Feinstein was 90!) Any decision "she" was made in the last couple years was made by her aids and not her. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. Details: > Four U.S. senators, including three Democrats, as well as three former Feinstein staffer…

It is how it’s supposed to work. She was 85 when she got elected the last time. If voters don’t want 90 year olds in office, maybe they shouldn’t vote 85 year olds in for a 6 year term. If she can’t be beat in a primary, then we need something like ranked choice voting so people can safely vote for an alternative third party without risking spoiling the election for a candidate they definitely don’t want.

Putting it on your radar: Approval Voting

Has many advantages over RCV / IRV (Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff Voting). For one - no need to change ballots; educating the public is a single sentence rather than a more-complicated explanation.

https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#229

Post by mc32 »

wiredfool wrote: post #76
coldpie wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and she's not the only one who is (edit: was) serving without being functional[1]. We need to start talking about upper age limits for public office. I believe it'd require a constitutional amendment, but I expect there's lots of support for it from all sides. I'd suggest 65 as a maximum age for being elected, which means one could serve to about age 71, for a six-year Senate term. [1] This article is from six y…

Reagan wasn’t all there for his second term.

Also see FDR...

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#230

Post by AnimalMuppet »

frob wrote: post #58
alexb_ wrote: post #3

Can someone give a QRD on all of the political ramifications that will come from this? I've heard things about judges being harder to appoint, what else is there?

From everything I could tell, one of the reasons Sen Feinstein was sticking around was that the GOP had indicated it would not allow Senate Democrats to replace her on the Judiciary committee. This would deadlock the committee, effectively stalling all judicial appointments and confirmations. That was in the case of a retirement. This is a death and reappointment. I am unsure if the new Senator would assume Sen Feins…

I think this is a bit off. I don't think the GOP in the Senate can stop California from appointing Feinstein's replacement, or keep them from being admitted to the Senate. They can keep the replacement from being appointed to the Judiciary Committee, but that is not an inherent right for senators from California.
Post reply on HN