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

251–260 of 377 posts

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#251

Post by alistairSH »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #230
frob wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct.

California can appoint an interim Senator (per their constitutional & laws - I believe the governor does it without any approval from other parties).

Committee appointment is by Senate rules. There's no automatic right to a seat on a committee. Judiciary is a massively important committee because it oversees the approval of federal judges (without committee approval, the nominees never get to the floor for a vote).

The GOP can block a committee replacement via filibuster. The Democrats could attempt a rules package to prevent filibuster, but Manchin (D-WV) has historically been against those.

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#252

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

korse wrote: post #231
nzrf wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is just engineer / architect and has to have all my trades approved and accounts granted access to reporting for not only my self but my partner. it really annoys me that these folks are not under more scrutiny. I don’t even have really any information to what these government officials do. This to me falls under the “rules for thee not me.”

Could you add a bit more context here? What sort of engineer and approved by whom?

If you work in engineering at a bank, all your personal account trades probably have to be pre-approved by your supervisor. You're almost certainly restricted on the products you can trade - like, maybe even "you cannot trade single stocks". You probably have to keep your account with an approved broker, who will then send your account statements to the compliance team at your firm.

If you try and trade a name that's on a restricted trading list (e.g. because the investment banking part of your firm is working on a deal with them) then that is also going to be denied.

If you're wall-crossed (e.g. in possession of material, non-public information, even by accident) for a deal, you absolutely cannot trade in related securities - like, go to jail, do not pass go.

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#253

Post by alistairSH »

rdedev wrote: post #243
banannaise wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with term limits is that they don't apply to lobbyists. Lobbyists basically writing most of the legislation is already a major problem, and it becomes worse when all the representatives are new to the office.

Wouldn't term limits atleast slightly mitigate this issue? Harder to be buddy buddy with the person in power of they keep changing every other term or two. But you are right about the influence of lobbyists. It's very messed up when an unknown unelected person can write parts of a law as is and get away with it

No, the term limit just shifts power from members of Congress to their staff members.

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#254

Post by justin66 »

eropple wrote: post #140
justin66 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't want to hand the keys to a running candidate, out of fairness to the also-quite-reasonable alternate candidates Is that something he has actually said?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/gavin-newsom-... > “Yes. Interim appointment. I don’t want to get involved in the primary,” Newsom said. “It would be completely unfair to the Democrats that have worked their tail off. That primary is just a matter of months away. I don’t want to tip the balance of that.”

Holy moly. "I wouldn't want an interim appointment I make to be political" is a silly enough sentiment that it cannot possibly be sincere. He just didn't know what the right move was yet, in terms of how he would benefit.

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#255

Post by philipov »

bombcar wrote: post #233
philipov wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part about voter apathy towards primaries is important. It means that the sort of people who vote in primaries don't represent an unbiased sample of their party: they skew towards the extremes, because those people can be more easily mobilized. This means that primaries don't produce candidates capable of representing the median voter very well, and we end up with a choice between the canonical Giant Douche and T…

I feel that in the last 20+ years or so, the candidates have seem to forgotten the "appeal to the crazies in the primaries, pivot for the general". Then again, the whole point of democracy is that the voters will get what they want and get it good and hard.

The voters don't get what they want, they get what you offer them. With a good marketing budget, you might be able to convince voters to want what you're offering them. That's called Manufactured Demand.

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#256

Post by bombcar »

User23 wrote: post #142
JWLong wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m fairly certain that percentage will still be less than the number of minors, which no one has a problem with excluding in the same way.

The Church, which is certainly something of a gerontocracy, excludes the elderly Cardinals from Papal elections too. It's not intrinsically unjust anymore than excluding the very young is.

To be fair, that limit is 80 and likely has more to do with not forcing elderly Cardinals to travel (many would and even still do out of a feeling of duty; it's basically literally the only "job" a Cardinal has that's not just him being a bishop).

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#257

Post by bombcar »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #203
JWLong wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m fairly certain that percentage will still be less than the number of minors, which no one has a problem with excluding in the same way.

And maybe elders should be excluded for the same reason! That is: Why do we exclude people under 18 from voting? Because we think they don't have the mental tools to understand policy well enough to make an informed decision. Well, if seniors don't have the mental tools anymore, should they be allowed to vote? And this is even stronger with holding office. You can vote at 18, but you can't be a representative until 2…

Remember that much of our current system has been a slow increase of the "popular" vote, from landholders to men to adults. At some point it'll go to "everyone above the age of 0" but let's not ignore that kids will at first vote the way their parents do, and then vote the exact opposite for awhile.

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#258

Post by bombcar »

schnebbau wrote: post #219
alphabettsy wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing a child to someone in their 70s with a lifetime of experience is silly. Maybe there should be limits once in office at a certain age, but not everyone ages the same.

My father is in his 70s and can barely remember what he had for breakfast. He should not be representing anyone, or even voting for that matter. There's no way to separate the able minded from the seniles fairly, so an age limit is the best way to do it.

Does your father continue to vote the same way he has most of his life?

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#259

Post by bombcar »

pierat wrote: post #209
alphabettsy wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing a child to someone in their 70s with a lifetime of experience is silly. Maybe there should be limits once in office at a certain age, but not everyone ages the same.

"Adolescence" was a made-up term to remove personal sovereignty over younger people who know full well, and would do, but aren't legally permitted to do so. They're also subject to our laws. They should have their say as well. And then we see under-18 routinely be charged as adults. And yes, if 15 year olds could vote and run for office, I do think we'd see more issues aimed at the younger generations ALONG WITH long…

We already allow 19-30 year olds to vote, and it doesn't really seem to move the needle much in areas they are supposedly interested in.

Re: Dianne Feinstein has died

#260

Post by edgyquant »

jfengel wrote: post #81
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly should the elderly be exempt from proper representation? There are plenty of things to criticize Nancy Pelosi about, for example, but still she's more intelligent and coherent than 99% of Congress.

They shouldn't, though Congress has a massive skew towards them. The median senator is on Social Security. The median House member is just shy of being able to make tax-free withdrawals from their 401(k)s. The minimum ages necessarily put an upward skew on it, but very few are anywhere near the minimum. There is little need to ensure representation for the elderly. And meantime, anybody of working age is badly under-…

Very few young people have the privilege to afford campaigning. It makes sense most people able to do so are old enough to have the savings, skills or passive income that allows them the freedom to hit the campaign trail.
Post reply on HN