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

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#861

Post by JeremyBanks »

koolba wrote: post #845
malwarebytess wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

You have a point in abstract, but in this case your argument is nonsense.

The president is repeatedly openly advocating for violence, and he's getting it. His party is supporting him, and refusing to enforce some of the longest-standing laws in the country.

That is what leads to violence, and calling it anything but evil would be a lie.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#862

Post by woah »

koolba wrote: post #845
malwarebytess wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Comes only from the left? Isn’t it the republicans who are convinced that any politician to the left of Mitt Romney is a pedophile lizard person?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#863

Post by tstrimple »

ailun wrote: post #793
tstrimple wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's past time for Democrats to stop "taking the high ground" and acting like their policies actually matter. Moral victories are hollow when your democracy is being gutted.

Sometimes I read comment sections on conservative websites. They say the exact same thing except with the parties reversed.

Yes, because it's the Democratic party who said that we cannot vote on a Supreme Court nominee during an election year only to 180 four years later. Please, show me all these relevant examples of Democrats being such brazen and open hypocrites. This pseudo intellectual "both sides" non-sense has done as much damage to this country as Republicans slide into fascism has.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#864

Post by lawnchair_larry »

goldcd wrote: post #670
ctdeneen wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But with the internet much more of what you do is visible and more people know about it. What you said could be attacked with "white silence is violence"

I had a much longer response typed - but deleted it when it stopped even making sense to me. "white silence is violence" googles Still no idea how that could be applied to my post - but I am most definitely white, and after a bit of introspection, can't think of anything I've constructively done to address racism outside of late-night internet posts. So whilst I'd like to think I was "non-racist" - I do now feel a bi…

No, the statement is nonsensical abusive rhetoric. Silence is literally not violence. It substitutes an argument that stands on its merits with a rather shameful and racist manipulation technique that is unfortunately quite effective, as evidenced by your apparent guilt. You obviously did nothing wrong. When racism flourishes is when we allow phrases like that to enter the discourse.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#865

Post by ModernMech »

bargl wrote: post #430
ianai wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Four. Whatever trump got plus one for Garland. Also make DC a state on day 1.

I for one, hope to all hell, this doesn't happen. It would make the supreme court just an extension of any party in power of presidency and senate. This is also, not to say I want freaking TRUMP to appoint the next justice. I just don't want to see it become a game of who's got the most votes. I was very opposed to Obama losing his appointment. I just don't want the precedent of 9 to change.

The precedent for 9 did change. Republicans changed it to 8 justices in 2016, and then back to 9 again in 2017 because it suited them politically. I don't see why Democrats should be shy about changing the number of justices this point.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#867

Post by lawnchair_larry »

Igelau wrote: post #765
ctdeneen wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But with the internet much more of what you do is visible and more people know about it. What you said could be attacked with "white silence is violence"

Speech isn't violence. Lack of speech isn't violence. People lazily regurgitate these postmodernist bumper sticker phrases and consider themselves informed activists.

What a world we live in when the mob downvotes someone for the obviously true statement of “lack of speech isn’t violence”. Postmodernism is a disease.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#868

Post by malwarebytess »

bargl wrote: post #460
ng12 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely because the founding fathers didn't expect the justices to be split on party lines. They were intended to be impartial judges ruling on a limited set of federal laws.

I would assume also because people also just didn't live as long back then. Life was in general a 20 year term. Average life span in 1800 of 50 years. Today it's 78.6. https://clickamericana.com/topics/health-medicine/us-life-ex... https://www.everydayhealth.com/senior-health/what-life-expec... Those probably aren't the best places for me to get numbers, but I think they're good enough for a rough example of what I m…

>I would assume also because people also just didn't live as long back then.

This is false. The statistic doesn't imply this. Longevity has not increased significantly, it's that life expectancy from birth has increased because childhood illness became less of a concern. Once at adult age people generally still lived long, ignoring accidents which really wouldn't be a concern for the type of people who would be justices.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#869

Post by ModernMech »

bargl wrote: post #460
ng12 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely because the founding fathers didn't expect the justices to be split on party lines. They were intended to be impartial judges ruling on a limited set of federal laws.

I would assume also because people also just didn't live as long back then. Life was in general a 20 year term. Average life span in 1800 of 50 years. Today it's 78.6. https://clickamericana.com/topics/health-medicine/us-life-ex... https://www.everydayhealth.com/senior-health/what-life-expec... Those probably aren't the best places for me to get numbers, but I think they're good enough for a rough example of what I m…

I'm sure the founding fathers expected Supreme Court justices to be rich, white, landowning men. What was the average age of that demographic back then?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#870

Post by tacheiordache »

roenxi wrote: post #245
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…

Although the justices being friends is inevitable, it is not desirable. The justices would be more representative of the people - and probably dispense better justice - if there was an uneasy compromise between them based on basic principles of precedent and law. That isn't a very fun vision of life on the bench - and any system is imperfect - so I don't really advocate that. But the idea that these people are assert…

No, being friends with contrasting opinions can be a good thing. Once in a while the guard slips off and one can see in the other's yard. Whoever's story has more flaws is likely to suffer a slight change in perception if not a downright 180 turn.
Post reply on HN