33 ms·
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
- dboreham 6y agoPresumably post-election, Biden can appoint, and the new democrat senate can confirm, 2 justices.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- a2tech 6y agoThis year keeps on giving.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- awat 6y ago:(
- voldacar 6y ago:)
- michaelmcdonald 6y agoFor as worthless as this comment will ultimately be: my thoughts go to her family.
- bargl 6y agoI 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.
- Ghostt8117 6y agoIt's not bad to send thoughts and prayers! It is only considered hypocritical when someone offers those thoughts and prayers despite protecting/enshrining/supporting/etc. the thing which directly resulted in the tragedy. For example, strong supporters of gun rights and those who suffer from gun violence. I also extend my deepest sympathies to her family and those who she was close with. It is hard to lose someone, and I am sure it is even worse when a lot of people will be disgustingly cheering the death.
- bargl 6y agoThe fact that we're so fast to assign these values to people we don't know on the internet makes me sad at times. I get it, it's just how people are. You bring up a good example, but I'd probably be in the category of believing guns are good for a democratic society (or at least so deeply entrenched that they can't get pulled out at this point). However, I also believe in some pretty strong gun controls and requirements for a more modern society. I'm not foolish enough to believe that people with guns could win a civil war in the day of modern weapons, I also don't think it's the most important civil liberty to protect for a free society. But it's a political pressure that can do some good, and there are very few practical means of getting rid of it, and I'd rather we focus on global warming while making reasonable changes to gun laws to minimize deaths where we can. Every reader of this paragraph will have a different reaction to my personal level of hypocrisy when I send thoughts and take a moment of silence for the victims of any shooting. It's subjective, but without that context I assume a lot more would find my thoughts and prayers objectionable. I get your stance, there's a lot of the never my guns people on the internet, and a lot among politicians. I've just personally been pushed by tribalism to not be able to talk to many people on the internet over my personal beliefs and share ideas. I enjoy the other side of every argument, but when people get attacked for their ideas they tend to shutdown and look for others who agree more.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago> I'm not foolish enough to believe that people with guns could win a civil war in the day of modern weapons I know HN hates opinions like this, but I'm a very staunch 2a supporter. My position is that citizens should have so-called "weapons of war", the same automatic weapons that the military carries with tons of ammunition. Joe six-pack should be able to walk to his local gun store and buy an M60 if he so pleases. In such a case, there's a very good chance that civilians could win a civil war.
- throwaway6000 6y agoGuess the republican SCOTUS replacement.
- tyingq 6y agoSquee. (WTDVs).
- scelerat 6y agoTom Cotton
- AdamJacobMuller 6y agoAmy Barrett.
- meundies9 6y agoProbably the most realistic choice. She's backed by the Federalist Society, rather than Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz. Plus, she's a woman. She'll get branded as the 'RBG of the right'
- refurb 6y agoI thought that was Sandra Day O’Conner? You know, the first woman on the Supreme Court and nominated by Reagan.
- adzm 6y agoMerrick Garland?
- k4tz 6y agoI wish.
- BurningFrog 6y agoThat would be the interesting move!
- 6y ago
- syedkarim 6y agoDoes Trump have enough time to get a new justice nominated and confirmed?
- koolba 6y agoHell yes he does. And 100% that Mitch will get it done!
- tyingq 6y agoSurely the combination of the current date, the COVID difficulties, and Democratic opposition mean it's not 100%.
- koolba 6y agoWith the filibuster gone there’s not much Democrats can do to stop it if they can muster 50 votes.
- tyingq 6y agoI still feel like that may not be easy. Doesn't take many Republicans (4?) that are skeptical about Trump being re-elected, and open to tit-for-tat to stall or halt this.
- krapp 6y agoThis is the Republicans' opportunity to stack the court overwhelmingly in their favor and guarantee the end of progressive and liberal influence in Constitutional law for a generation. The repeal of everything from the ACA and gay marriage to Roe V. Wade is on the table. They're not going to turn that down just to mess with Trump, this is way bigger than Trump.
- tyingq 6y agoThat is compelling, but I wouldn't overlook tit-for-tat. Senators live to be re-elected, and there are lots of close races in this exact timeframe. Four "we will take a dive" promises could make a difference.
- bonzini 6y agoOf course a president should not appoint a judge on the last few months of his term, should he?
- xwdv 6y agoHe absolutely should it is his job.
- zacksinclair 6y agoDo you recall when the republican party blocked Obama's ability to appoint in the run-up to the last election? (parent commenter is referencing this)
- hindsightbias 6y agoBiden Rule!
- tick_tock_tick 6y agoFor context https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden...
- mikeyouse 6y agoIt wasn't even in the "run up" to the election - Scalia died in early February. Garland was nominated in mid March. Obama had 10 more months in the Presidency (~23% of his presidency left when Scalia died and McConnell said we shouldn't fill a vacancy in an election year).
- jeffbee 6y ago"In the run up" meaning that Scalia died in February 2016, nine months before the election, and the very solemnly contemplative senator from Kentucky announced “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."
- pdxandi 6y agoThis is awful for multiple reasons.
- awnird 6y agoThis turn of events means a likely ossification of American policy for a generation. Whether that’s good or bad is up to you, but that’s how things now stand.
- mmaunder 6y agoWorked right to the end even with her health challenges. What a role model.
- mc32 6y agoHmm, I’m ambivalent about people who do this. I think if you know your time is near, you should take it easy. Do some mundane things. Yes, I know “but it’s the only thing I love doing”. I disagree with that choice.
- wilg 6y agoIt's different when you're a member of the US SUPREME COURT
- neltnerb 6y agoYeah, right, most people don't have that kind of commitment so their job. It's not a good match for most people. Probably not something everyone should emulate.
- casefields 6y agoNot really. It's just Weekend at Bernies with higher stakes.
- jeffbee 6y agoShe should have retired before 2016 and let someone step up. Occupying the seat of power until you keel over at the age of 85 is a peculiar expression of ego and selfishness.
- tomrod 6y agoClearly the congress at that time was acting in bad faith and would have delayed her successor being appointed, as they did with Merrick Garland.
- 6y ago
- magicroot75 6y agoShe lived well from conception to a natural death.
- CalChris 6y agoA great lady.
- hindsightbias 6y agoAnd so it ends. I weep for those without, you will not have the recourse those of the last half century had.
- adzm 6y ago> 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/1307101417522561025 https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/13071014175225610...
- atonse 6y agoAs much as I respected and admired RBG, even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else. If things weren’t so polarized, they absolutely should spare no time in replacing the seat, as is their duty. But we know it’ll be yet another cynical and dishonest process as it was last time.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tyingq 6y agoI'm somewhat curious how much deference and respect the administration will grant her. Basically how many days before they start pitching their nominee. Edit: Fwiw, the RBG movie about her is on Hulu now.
- bastardoperator 6y agoThey already pitched nominees because they knew she was dying. So zero respect. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-supreme-court-picks-2020-election-biden https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-suprem...
- tyingq 6y agoI suppose, but the number of days before they bring a nominee to the floor seems a more direct measure.
- basementcat 6y agoIt isn't about respect. The upcoming election may be disputed in court and the Administration wants to have as many judges on its side as possible. Even if there is no election related court challenge, there are many investigations of the current administration ongoing and it would be helpful to have more conservative justices for insurance.
- server_bot 6y agoSad day, she was a champion of the people - a fighter for both women's rights and civil rights. Her iconic status was earned. Would recommend the 2018 documentary "RBG" for anyone interested in her life and career.
- MichaelZuo 6y agoRest in Peace Justice RBG. Considering the effect that lawyer hours must have put on her for decades she seemed reasonably okay in the last few years.
- ianai 6y agoI 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.
- jcalvinowens 6y ago> It only takes a majority in the senate and house to add a seat to the SCOTUS Exactly. If Biden wins and the senate flips, they'll just add two justices (for 11 total) to get a majority. The right will scream bloody murder, but won't be able to do anything about it.
- ianai 6y agoFour. Whatever trump got plus one for Garland. Also make DC a state on day 1.
- jessaustin 6y agoYou're really expecting a landslide, aren't you? Democrats are doing the exact same thing this time they did last time, and they're expecting the virus to save them. It might not happen...
- jcalvinowens 6y agoIt wouldn't take anything close to a landslide for the senate to flip. My point is: if the Democrats win the senate and the presidency, it doesn't really matter if Trump fills this vacancy. There is zero doubt they will stack the court when in power if he does.
- jessaustin 6y agoI hope you're right. Stacking the court with a certain sort of justice would convince a lot of people to give up on this polity. The sooner this threat to humanity can be broken up in smaller parts, the better.
- tus88 6y ago> That was never more evident than in 1996 when, as a relatively new Supreme Court justice, Ginsburg wrote the court's 7-to-1 opinion declaring that the Virginia Military Institute could no longer remain an all-male institution. True, said Ginsburg, most women — indeed most men — would not want to meet the rigorous demands of VMI. But the state, she said, could not exclude women who could meet those demands. What's the bet she was OK with male-only conscription though?
- scarface74 6y agoThere is no evidence that she would be opposed to women entering the draft. The case hasn’t been tried before the Supreme Court, but a Federal Court has already said that excluding women from the draft is discriminatory. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-women-draft-registration.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/ruth-bader-ginsb...
- tus88 6y agoPeople don't "enter" the draft, that's why it's called conscription. And you would think after decades of having opinions on similar issues she might have expressed a view at some point.
- geofft 6y agoSeems 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 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 unconstitutional. The ACLU, along with a number of women's rights organizations, filed an amicus on appeal arguing that the ruling was correct. (The appeal was organized by a conservative group founded by Phyllis Schlafly.)
- tus88 6y agoAbout the only thing that has in common is it's military related.
- baryphonic 6y agoI mean, holy sh. This election is going to be insane.
- tasty_freeze 6y agoEven if Trump loses, they will seat a Federalist ideologue who is as young as they can possibly find so that the effects will be felt for 30+ years.
- jessaustin 6y agoSo... Tom Cotton?
- stickyricky 6y agoI 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 Antonin are living it up.
- juniper_strong 6y agoSeems like that sort of thing is becoming rarer every day. RIP Ruth and Antonin.
- dmit 6y agoThe relationship between RBG and Scalia served as inspiration for one of the most beloved post-Sorkin episodes of The West Wing. The Supremes, 5x17.
- bryanmgreen 6y agoFor all the crap the non-Sorkin episodes get, that episode should be in the Hall of Fame for TV. Both the script and acting are of the highest caliber.
- nkurz 6y agoSince the parent link is to an NPR piece, here's NPR's coverage of Ginsburg's memorial tribute to Scalia: https://www.npr.org/2016/02/15/466848775/scalia-ginsburg-opera-commemorates-sparring-supreme-court-friendship https://www.npr.org/2016/02/15/466848775/scalia-ginsburg-ope...
- stickyricky 6y agoI'll also link a video of her eulogy to Scalia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb_2GgE564A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb_2GgE564A
- roenxi 6y ago
- bleepblorp 6y agoI 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.
- abawany 6y agoIt really does seem the cosmos has decided that America's time of greatness (however broad the meaning of that word is) is at an end. I hope my comment turns out to be another "who needs dropbox". Edit0:s/this/my.
- bluedevil2k 6y agoBased on what? A justice dying and a terrible president who will be voted out of office in 7 weeks? Quit with the sensationalist “the world is ending” comments that aren’t based on anything but you’re pessimistic gut feeling.
- abawany 6y agoYou accuse me of pessimistic gut feeling while laying out yours. The election outcome is far far far from certain. I used to deal with coworkers who were similarly smug in 2016 and they were proven to be equally wrong.
- bluedevil2k 6y agoYes, people are wrong every election, that’s what happens when someone wins and someone loses. The same thing will happen in 7 weeks as well.
- chrismsimpson 6y agoHave you just awoken from a four year slumber?
- hprotagonist 6y agoBarukh atah Adonai Eloheinu melekh ha'olam, dayan ha-emet. i pray for peace and rest to her and her family, and grace and mercy, wisdom and forebearance for us.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y agoThe 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.
- tomrod 6y agoI figure it was already pretty high to begin with.
- jagger27 6y agoIt seems to me that widespread conflict is exactly what Trump republicans want. Just this weeks' news: mass hysterectomies in ICE camps, Trump's tirade on rewriting school history books on slavery, overt mail service destruction, more anti-mask rhetoric, and the list goes on and on. They're putting the pedal to the metal.
- DenisM 6y ago>mass hysterectomies in ICE camps It seems quite a bit over the top. Do you really think it's true?
- jagger27 6y agoWhat makes you so skeptical? I don’t think it’s off-message at all for this admin to order such a thing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- edbob 6y ago> mass hysterectomies in ICE camps All I found was two allegations against a single doctor. That's horrible if true, but it seems like a typical case of medical malpractice that has nothing whatsoever to do with the administration.
- 6y ago
- libs4jail 6y agoliberals: for all the fucking shit you pulled this year between the fake covid && the riots - we are sending all of you to jail!
- drainge 6y agoVote
- rvz 6y agofor
- slater 6y agoanyone but tr*mp
- rvz 6y agobecause someone is going to get a massive landslide.
- worker767424 6y agoPedro
- alistairSH 6y agoToo late. 2016 was the time to vote. Also, why bother? Electoral College means my vote counts for shit and half the Presidents since I’ve been able to vote were elected by losing the popular vote. It’s tyranNy of the minority and it sucks. I still vote, but it feels more and more Sisyphean as time goes on.
- redisman 6y agoMove to a small red state and vote
- spodek 6y agoI saw her speak at West Point about a year and a half ago. In a room including colonels, generals, and cadets, she riveted the audience with humor, stories, wit, and insight. My favorite insight was her sharing her friendship with Scalia. Their nearly opposite politics didn't stop them from things like he would secretly pass her notes while hearing cases to try to make her laugh. Her sharing contributed to my befriending a few people with opposite political views, against this nation's tide of increasing polarization and beating opponents without trying to understand (Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind contributed too). Among the results: less anger, more understanding, more self-awareness, though also more confusion among friends and family to why I would talk to someone who voted that way.
- spiritplumber 6y agoOld people lowkey flirting is so wholesome.
- dexterdog 6y agoThis is Trump's chance to score some points. If he defers the appointment he will score some points with people and have a better chance of re-election. If they ram it through his chances of winning will be worse than they already are. This is at most a 2d chess move. They'll probably still screw it up.
- pm90 6y agoNo, you have it backwards. He increases his chances by appointing another conservative, pro life judge.
- tyre 6y agoFor every one of the coming takes that Republicans will be hypocrites to appoint and confirm a justice (which they will) They do not give a fuck. That’s not how they see power and it is why they have a far disproportionate share of power/representation than their support across the electorate. This is about power. In politics, nothing else matters.
- mhh__ 6y ago> They do not give a fuck Something that the Democrats need to realize is that they (especially Obama) assumed too much good faith in the congressional GOP. You can stick to your principles while doing it but, when you are against a party who now considers its last nominee (Romney) a radical BLM leftist, when they go low you need to be ready to kick them in the head.
- tyre 6y agoPrecisely. There is a desire, specifically and especially on the left, to get so caught up in their principles that people believe it is the primary source of change. For example: What should be the first acts and priorities be of a democratic administration? Healthcare? Nope. Climate change? Nope. A federal holiday for election days? Yes. Passing legislation mandating mail-in ballots? Yes. That’s how you think about politics. About power. Lock in any advantage and expand it. Democrats have popular support for their policies but cannot for the life of them think strategically.
- mhh__ 6y agoBeing embarrassed about wanting to be in power is a perpetual problem for leftism (It's understandable - it involves saying yes to the institutions you probably want to reform). Consider Corbyn in the UK - Awful polling from day 1, doesn't help much with Brexit, loses 2 elections (One meh, one disaster) but the lessons learned is that they won the "argument" and it's all good?
- nerdponx 6y ago
- disown 6y agoI think this is the first time in a long while that a non-nytimes obituary post leads on HN. Did the nytimes social media team all move to npr? Anyways I think ginsburg is the perfect example of why we need age, health and/or term limits for SCOTUS. Lifetime appointments should not exist in any government position and health should be a consideration on whether someone can hold a major government position. It's embarrassing to see both sides ( including ginsburg herself ) use ginsburg's life as a political football. Also "champion of gender equality"? Was she a judge or a political activist? Or is she just another example of the politization of the courts, media and every aspect of our lifes?
- Arubis 6y agoI suspect, based on your comment, that you and I have a fair amount of conflict in our expressed politics. (I was firmly in the “May RBG hang on for dear life” camp.) Nevertheless, I agree with the core tenet here: term limits would be a major improvement for the SCOTUS, even if relatively lengthy. They would mitigate for all involved parties the otherwise daunting threat of a particular personality, potentially ideologically incompatible with one’s own worldview, holding sway open-endedly and potentially for a generation. (Separately: I found that the NPR link didn’t work for me at first, and checked NYT; they had not yet posted an obit.)
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y agoIt's not even surprising when you consider that SCOTUS judges are, by constitutional design, appointed by presidents, who by design, are supposed to represent the electorate. If judges were supposed to be pure judges and not activists, they would be selected by an independent process purely based on legal / academic merit. All judges, but especially Supreme Court ones, are political activists. They just have the education and experience to wrap it in legal language.
- mhh__ 6y agoThe courts are politicized i.e. partisan, but holding Gender Equality "activism" up as an example of this would be counterproductive. This would make anything other than extreme textualism sacrilege, although equality is in the spirit of the constitution if not the attitudes of those who wrote it (i.e. They owned slaves). Being in favour of gender equality, is a political statement - politics is a catch all term for every heated interaction between people that (hopefully) doesn't involve guns. You have to have some political principles to guide your court. Also relevant, the recent Trans rights supreme court ruling - makes some people uneasy (Politics!) but still absolutely the right thing to do (in vacuo or within the context of the CRA). I would link to it but Visual Studio has just starting rebooting my computer...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- spiritplumber 6y agoThis turn of events means a likely ossification of American policy for a generation. Much like in Iran, you risk ending up with a "council of sages" who is out of step and out of touch with the will of the people. I say "you" because I can go elsewhere. My extended family wishes for me to return to Italy for my own safety.
- Trasmatta 6y agoWhy are there two posts right next to each other with the exact same first sentence? > This turn of events means a likely ossification of American policy for a generation. This was also posted by: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24522964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24522964
- refurb 6y agoI’m guessing they both read a Vox article that used that word and thought it sounded smart?
- Trasmatta 6y agoPutting aside the "ossification" drop, having the same sentence word for word, posted within a few minutes of each other is weird.
- 3131s 6y agoI don't have a link but I know it's happened in a few other HN comment sections. Of course we have no clue as to how HN's algorithm works and what they do to mitigate manipulation on this platform. I definitely notice corporate spam on certain topics from time to time.
- DenisM 6y agoPlease report it to the mods if you can find it. They asked that we do.
- RivieraKid 6y agoThis is really depressing, even for a non-American. The only question is whether they appoint a new justice before election or after.
- michaelsbradley 6y agoEternal rest grant to her, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon her. May her soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
- throwaway122378 6y agoEveryone here saying the republicans did this to Obama so how could they appoint a judge clearly don’t understands leverage.
- Kattywumpus 6y agoIf Trump and the Republicans confirm a new Justice, Democrats have indicated they will pack the Supreme Court, appointing as many Justices as they feel necessary to get the rulings they want. "If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can't feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that's fully constitutional in our availability," he said. "I don't want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that." -- Tim Kaine, D-Va, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-warn-gop-don-t-fill-supreme-court-vacancy-2020-n1234885 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-war... The Constitution and Bill of Rights are interpreted through the Supreme Court. If you pack the court, you have essentially destroyed the legitimacy of Constitutional government. The consequences of this cannot be overstated. All Constitutional rights will be up for reinterpretation and elimination. This is a very precarious moment in history. Perhaps the end of American history as we have known it. That's a grandiose statement, but it's not an incorrect one.
- rezendi 6y agoThis is amusingly silly. Changing the composition of the Court is not unheard of and FDR, not exactly known as the poster child of "destroying the legitimacy of Constitutional government," nearly did it in 1937 (and likely would have if not for another untimely death.) https://today.law.harvard.edu/if-democrats-win-in-november-should-they-pack-the-supreme-court/ https://today.law.harvard.edu/if-democrats-win-in-november-s...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- refurb 6y agoFDR can absolutely shit on by his own party for the idea. He ended up backing down.
- nsajko 6y agoConsider Maduro (Venezuela). He and his government are enduring all kinds of enormous attacks from all around the ("Western") world and horrible malicious interference by USA, but the only thing that we know of that Maduro's side did wrong (arguably) was packing the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.
- yangmaster 6y agoI hope that RBG's replacement will be selected and sworn after Inauguration Day – but I have a chilling feeling that it will happen before.
- deathgrips 6y agoUnfortunately modern activists and politicians want to make it seem like no reasonable person could disagree with them. This makes it impossible to engage in a dialogue and bridge a gap.
- usefulcat 6y agoThe problem is that those activists and politicians you refer to are a reflection of what way too many voters genuinely want.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIn general, though, it's been seen as a core responsibility for activists and politicians to channel their constituents' passions towards productive ends. There've always been a lot of toxic people in the world - that doesn't have to lead to toxic politics.
- malandrew 6y agoIs it though? Most people are more politically center and the extremes of the political spectrum keep trying to pull politicians towards the extremes. When that failed to work, they started pulling out the "you're either with us or against us" card forcing people to pick sides or be ostracized if they risked being nuanced.
- chiefalchemist 6y agoPolitics and media have become extreme because they are dying "industries." The internet has (pardon me) disrupted both of them. Severely. They crank up the hyperbole in order to try to justify the need for their existence. That cycle can't go on forever. In fact we see the results weekly. For example, politicians aren't moving the needle so more and more people resort to protesting (and yes, rioting). I'm not an advocate of violence. But it's easy to see the level of frustration and disgust wasn't being addressed.
- RickJWagner 6y ago
- mitchbob 6y agoI'd like very much to see a black bar for her on Hacker News. She did as much to promote gender equality as any American ever.
- xmly 6y agoTime to vote! Time to vote! Vote!
- rvz 6y agoQuestion is for...
- meundies9 6y agoAlright, it's finally time for a court packing. Let's be real, NO ONE is expecting Trump not to fill her seat. Also why we need to win the Senate as well. I'm also curious about how John Roberts is going to react to what comes after her seat's filled.
- theshadowknows 6y agoAbsolutely. My family is feverishly working on how to leave this hellscape of a country we’re in. The United States is dead.
- seibelj 6y agoI’m sad to say you may find the grass is always greener on the other side - government corruption exists everywhere that government exists.
- zanny 6y agoTheres a sliding scale of it though. The disinformation and anti-intellectual campaigns are generally weaker in mainland Europe and as a consequence the governments are less broken. The US is at the point where 30-40% of the country would drink bleach and shoot their neighbor at the presidents command while probably similar numbers are functionally illiterate. Not to say the democracy has been functioning, but you can't have a functional one with these preconditions. And its structurally intentional. This is all a product of decades of machination and effort to craft this cultural zeitgeist of zealotry and active war against one another while robber barons pillage the commons.
- howlgarnish 6y agoWith all due respect, you're engaging in the same zealotry yourself here. Trump is an idiot, but his ramblings about disinfecting the lungs do not mean "30-40% of the country would drink bleach" or that his voters are "functionally illiterate".
- treeman79 6y agoHe was correct on the lungs issue. There is a treatment that involved UV light tube inserted into the lungs. I don’t think it panned out, but it is a real thing.
- 6y ago
- op03 6y agoRemove the Publicly visible Like Count and those kind of conversations and connections are easy. The Like count makes people defensive or aggressive especially when they are called out in public leading to never ending reaction and counter reaction cycles. Without that dumb random signal interfering in conversations all kinds of strange connections are possible. I see it at work meetings between highly competitive people who dont have anything in common with each other. I see it on whatsapp chat groups. But I don't see it happening on FB, Twitter and on the News. These mediums favor reaction-counter reaction over solutions. Connection takes time and the right environment. Anyone who wants connection and solutions to trump reactions, please have those conversation in an environment without random signals interfering with the process.
- renewiltord 6y agoWhat. People were acrimonious in the medieval ages. They didn't have like counts. This is such total bullshit.
- op03 6y agoI have seen it with friends busy bashing each other on Twitter/FB but being able to reconcile on a Whatsapp group or a private meeting. Its not that on Whatsapp groups some members of the group aren't entertained by a good fight and goad/encourage both sides. Its that when its private and social status and social signaling is less of a priority and people you trust/respect can step in and cool things down and refocus the conversation on solutions. In the public square there are thousands of retards who will show up to encourage both sides to keep fighting. It benefits the platforms. Conflict is much more engaging than a boring conversation on lets work out the details.
- intended 6y agoMaybe people are now, more often than not, talking to Human nodes in a network, and the network outperforms you in presenting data that will match a confirmation bias. So it would imply that you can reason with an individual who isn’t acting as node.
- kelnos 6y agoHere's my prediction: Trump will nominate a successor in the next couple weeks. McConnell will start the process, but delay the vote until after the November election. This way: If Trump wins, McConnell can say that he was entirely reasonable and consistent, and he waited until after the election to ensure that the people really wanted Trump's SCOTUS nomination to be confirmed. If Trump loses, McConnell still has the option say hell with it, and ram Trump's nomination through anyway. Any Republican Senators who might be worried about re-election chances will already have kept or lost their seats. I expect election results won't be final enough to call by the end of election day like they usually are, but even if it takes a couple weeks, that still leaves over a month for the Senate to vote on the nomination before their session ends at the beginning of January. The other possibility is that McConnell will just get it all done immediately. He likely has the numbers now -- I doubt any of the fence-sitting Republican Senators would vote no, even those who are up for re-election this year -- and it's not clear that he actually gives a damn about appearances at this point. Waiting could also have a downside: it's possible that enough Republican Senators who have lost their seats in the election could feel too uncomfortable confirming a nomination of this magnitude during their own lame-duck session. But again, not sure how much these people will care about fairness when the chips are down.
- ALittleLight 6y agoHigh information Republican voters will know what he did and why, and will probably support his decision. Low information Republican voters will not know about his hypocrisy. Non-Republican voters won't vote for him regardless. I expect McConnel to just create some reason why things are different this time, or, if he wants to be a troll, to say "I was wrong in 2016" or just to not address the hypocrisy and go right on ahead nominating a new Justice.
- kelnos 6y ago> I expect McConnel to just create some reason why things are different this time I believe he already has. I read something a few months ago (can't find it now) where he was asked about replacing a hypothetical vacancy before the end of this year, and he hand-waved his way around the hypocrisy.
- vmception 6y agoRest in Peace RGB Rest in Peace American Republic
- areoform 6y agoThere is no more fitting of an eulogy than what she stated for herself, "Q. When the time comes, what would you like to be remembered for? RBG: Someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best of her ability, and to help repair tears in her society. ‘To do something,' as my colleague David Souter would say, ‘outside myself.’ Because I’ve gotten much more satisfaction for the things that I’ve done for which I was not paid." I made this in her honor, https://i.imgur.com/3OlCIum.png https://i.imgur.com/3OlCIum.png
- gautamcgoel 6y agoThis will probably be downvoted, but I think it was incredibly arrogant and selfish of RBG not to retire when Obama was in office so that he could pick her successor. She knew she was getting old and had already had brushes with cancer. If she really cared about feminism and liberalism, why not let Obama appoint a younger justice to the court, someone who would fight for those values for years to come? It's not like there is a shortage of great choices.
- toomim 6y agoIt's sad to me that people like you think it's more important that your politics are represented in the Supreme Court than that the justices do a good job working together and holding a consistent integral legal standard for the country to follow. As a fan of the Supreme Court, I think it's one of our least-political institutions. It's certainly the least political branch of government, especially if you compare it to the Legislature (extremely political) and the President (extremely political). It's the only piece of sanity we have left. And here you call her selfish for not playing politics. Please, consider the value of having a part of government without politics. Consider how rare it is for someone to put other ideals above their political party!
- COGlory 6y agoGinsburg herself tarnished the legacy of the supreme court by becoming political https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/07/ruth-bader-ginsburg-risks-her-legacy-to-insult-donald-trump.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/07/ruth-bader-ginsb...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kwhat4 6y agoThe republicans know how to win, and will do so by any means necessary. The democrats seem happy taking the high road to yet another humiliating defeat. This is why I'm done voting and pretending it makes a difference.
- acdha 6y agoYou’re doing exactly what the Republicans want: they don’t need you to support them as long as you don’t get in their way. Unless you share their goals, you might want to reconsider this strategy.
- kwhat4 6y agoI'm sorry but how exactly did they democrats get in the way last time when Obama was president? Rolling over and saying whats suppose to happen doesn't qualify as anything meaningful as far as I am concerned. If the democrats want support, they need to grow a fucking backbone and show us they deserve it.
- joshuamorton 6y ago> I'm sorry but how exactly did they democrats get in the way last time when Obama was president? How could they? They didn't have the votes, because people didn't vote for democrats. You want democrats to have power in the government: make sure they have a majority.
- kwhat4 6y agoFail to see how that matters in states like California and when the former presidential candidate lost with a surplus of 2.5 million votes. Your vote for president only really matters in a handful of states regardless of how many popular votes you tally.
- joshuamorton 6y agoYou've shifted your argument. Previously it was that you shouldn't vote because you didn't want to support democratic representatives who "don't have a backbone", now it's that you don't want to vote because it doesn't matter. I'll also note that your vote for president has no impact on the senate's membership. It's entirely a non-sequitor.
- phobosanomaly 6y agoDue to a really old technicality in our electoral system, we keep putting people in the presidency that the American people didn't actually vote for. Both Bush and Trump were not elected by a popular vote. The majority of American are being held hostage by a minority of voters with a disproportionate amount of political power. These un-elected presidents have had such incredibly far-reaching influences on the American political landscape, economy, and infrastructure (setting aside the fallout of the neocon's foreign military adventures).
- tomjakubowski 6y agoI agree with you that presidents who lose the popular vote have questionable legitimacy. But Bush did actually win the popular vote in 2004 (a majority even) for his second term, which is when he appointed Roberts and Alito.
- cma 6y agoBush likely wouldn't have won 2004 without 2000 though.
- newfriend 6y agoIt's not a technicality. It's the law. The popular vote means nothing in regards to the Presidential election. * The House is voted in by the people. * The Senate is voted in by the states. * The President is voted in by both. No one is being held hostage. This system was created purposefully, and has been the same since its inception. Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.
- phobosanomaly 6y agoThe majority of Americans did not want either as president. It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the majority of American voters. However, the law does not elect a president according to whether or not the American people wish them to be president. Seems like a technicality to me.
- erichocean 6y ago
- tasty_freeze 6y agoOne thing I like to point out is between Johnson and Clinton, Republican presidents placed 11 Supreme Court justices in a row (Nixon 4, Ford 1, Carter 0, Reagan 4, GW Bush 2), though the picks were usually not extreme because Democrats controlled the Senate except during six of Reagan's years. After Bill Clinton seated two liberal justices there has been an unending cry about how liberal the court is.
- WhompingWindows 6y agoWhy 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?
- ng12 6y agoMost 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.
- bargl 6y agoI 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-expectancy-in-the-1800s https://clickamericana.com/topics/health-medicine/us-life-ex... https://www.everydayhealth.com/senior-health/what-life-expectancy-today/ 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 mean.
- jdgiese 6y agoThe average adult life span may be a better metric if child mortality rates were high.
- smnrchrds 6y agoLife expectancy at birth was low because many people died in childhood, bringing down the average. Those who survived childhood lived much longer lives. I used the historical list of US Supreme Court justices [0] and averaged the lifespan of the first 20 justices. The average was 67 years. Maximum was 91 [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#All_justices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Suprem... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Duvall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Duvall
- throwaway6000 6y ago"BREAKING: Trump will quickly pick a replacement for Justice Ginsburg, and Sen. Mitch McConnell & the Republican-controlled Senate will move to confirm his nominee,creating a new political flashpoint in election while firing up evangelicals & shoring up GOP base and vote for Trump"
- edoceo 6y agoSenate Leader McCconnell has said as much: https://apnews.com/84003fe2f5c8d910afda84d2b33f19be https://apnews.com/84003fe2f5c8d910afda84d2b33f19be
- sophacles 6y agoA man literally arguing against himself.
- acjohnson55 6y agoThe frustrating thing about the center is the propensity to take things at face value, no matter how bad faith. It has been patently obvious for decades that the Republican party plays by a thoroughly cynical playbook. A credulous centrist elite accepts each new plot twist as the status quo, after a genteel interval of whining. Enough is enough. People in favor of good governance need to end a system that allows a minority of voters to elect a President. That allows a minority of voters to elect a Senate majority that represents a minority of citizens. That allows a minority of voters to elect House majorities. That refuses the franchise to largely minoritized citizens of DC, Puerto Rico, and the other teritories. That does not allow the present and formerly incarcerated to vote. That allows unaccountable moneyed interests to blast the electorate with propaganda. That has, as a final check, a court of 9 life appointees. For a long time, the country managed to float by on tradition, but our refusal to build a modern government is presently our downfall.
- munificent 6y ago> The frustrating thing about the center is the propensity to take things at face value, no matter how bad faith. It has been patently obvious for decades that the Republican party plays by a thoroughly cynical playbook. A credulous centrist elite accepts each new plot twist as the status quo, after a genteel interval of whining. It took me a long time to realize this, but I don't think "bad faith" or "cynicism" is the right way to look at how these Republican politicians are behaving. Both of those terms still imply a certain level of respect for the humanity of the other party and a desire to create some consensus, even if through subterfuge. No, the Republicans are acting like Democratic politicians are enemies in war. It's not "cynical" to hide information from or mislead the enemy. It's just battle tactics. They aren't trying to reach consensus, they are trying to destroy.
- alasdair_ 6y agoJust in case it becomes relevant in the next few days: "'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,'' -Senator Mitch McConnell in 2016
- alistairSH 6y agoHe’s already said this year is different. He made that comment months ago.
- thebigspacefuck 6y agoI’m sure he realizes how outraged people were by that decision and to not make the same mistake this time.
- rexf 6y agohahahaha His words mean nothing. Unfortunately, he does what he wants, not what he's said. His past proclamations are merely inconvenient distractions.
- glenstein 6y agoI wonder if he will go down in American history as a more poisonous senator than McCarthy.
- peteradio 6y agoHe was just playing the incredible hand dealt him.
- Hnrobert42 6y agoI don’t think so. He could play it differently, that is, with integrity.
- peteradio 6y ago> with integrity. What exactly do you think politics is?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mindfulhack 6y agoAfter watching a 2018 documentary on Ruth Bader Ginsburg and seeing her work as a lawyer in the 70's, fighting and making and winning cases for pure social justice in the highest court of the land, RBG became an instant hero to me. She will always inspire me, here or not, to fight for justice and what my conscience tells me is right. I have a great deal to say and a great deal to fight for. When it gets tough, she will be there to keep me standing. Thank you, Ruth, for being such a fully self-actualised individual. You have shown the way. I am forever grateful. A giant has fallen.
- yyyk 6y agoRIP. 2020 just keeps getting worse. Also, the US needs a maximum age limit for SCOTUS justices.
- BooneJS 6y agoUnsurprising. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/reaction-ruth-bader-ginsburg-death/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/reaction-... > Breaking: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who refused to consider President Obama’s choice months before the 2016 election, said in a statement Friday hours after Ginsburg’s death: “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
- SN76477 6y agoSuch a lack of empathy from him. I am deeply disappointed at anyone celebrating her loss.
- gonesberg 6y agoWell, that's your country fucked then eh? Bad luck. I think your only hope now is some good old-fashioned Presidential assassination. No-one would be more deserving than Trump to get a bullet between the eyes, eh?
- RickJWagner 6y agoRBG was also the voice of reason when Justice Kavanaugh was under attack by an unhinged mob. She truly could see beyond politics, and will be missed by both sides of the aisle.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- michaelmrose 6y agoI 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.
- __blockcipher__ 6y agoProbably 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 questions in their stead), and did a bunch of other research around the issue, and it became clear to me that the story was completely fabricated, given that even close friends of the accuser could not corroborate her story, let alone the party itself ever having existed, and Kavanaugh produced a (weirdly) meticulous calendar that showed that he wasn't in the area whatsoever. Personally, I am a strong believer that sexual assault is a criminal matter. It's not the kind of thing you stay silent about for decades, having never stored any memorandums of the alleged crime (the therapist notes did not name Kavanaugh specifically and were relatively recent), and then try to spring on someone to prevent their appointment. If you really think someone is a rapist, you should try to put them in jail, not just stop them from taking a political position. (And yes, I understand that often victims do not want to bring up criminal charges and I understand why. But if you haven't documented any real evidence, trying to bring up an issue 3-4 decades later is just totally absurd. These are life-destroying claims being made here. Ford (the accuser) had NO EVIDENCE (the "therapist's notes" did not identify Kavanaugh, or go into any detail into the supposed act)). Anyway, I've rambled enough. Sorry for the wall of text, but I really hate how so many friends of mine to this day still think Kavanaugh is a rapist without a shred of evidence; indeed, it's worse than that because all the evidence makes me personally feel that this was a case of outright deceit rather than false memory or a simple mixup. There were just too many contradictions and changes to the story and lack of detail where it really mattered to make the allegation even remotely credible, even if we use a "there's reasonable cause to believe he was a rapist" standard. That is to say that I don't think Blasey Ford met even an incredibly weak standard of evidence.
- mrkstu 6y agoFor those so certain that the Republican Senate is going to ram though someone, there are a few moderates left, and they've already decided thing can wait until after the election: "So far the following GOP Senators have pledged that they will not consider a Supreme Court appointment until after the next inauguration. Susan Collins Chuck Grassley Lisa Murkowski" [0]:https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1307115333669580807 https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1307115333669580807 The Senate is currently split 53/47, I don't believe Romney has addressed the issue yet. No one should get too bitter and divisive just yet.
- abawany 6y agoHope you're right: https://www.axios.com/trump-ginsburg-supreme-court-10bf5f37-bb33-41d6-a647-1143fbdb2d98.html https://www.axios.com/trump-ginsburg-supreme-court-10bf5f37-... . The threat of withholding money if they don't comply has got to be pretty effective to bring any independent thinkers in line.
- edoceo 6y agoAnother case for removing big money from politics
- stjohnswarts 6y agoYeah I wouldn't bet too long on that. McConnell knows how to twist arms, they will crack to pressure and get a solid conservative in there before the election. Of that I'm sure.
- odyssey7 6y agoI’d say he could also wait until after. Last time, the vacancy motivated Republican more than Democratic turnout — and if Republicans don’t win the Senate again, there’s still time after the election to do the appointment.
- gamblor956 6y agoThere are almost a dozen GOP Senate seats up at risk. A vote before the election gives them a solid victory to campaign on to their base, which might be enough to keep those seats in the GOP in November. Waiting until after the election does nothing to improve their electoral prospects, so for McConnell there's no point in waiting.
- elbigbad 6y agoThis won’t happen. I’m a reasonable person and happy to change my mind with evidence, and don’t say this lightly, but the republicans do not give a crud about any of this. They are the most conniving and soulless individuals that exist. This is coming from a recent former republican. I miss George Will’s Republican party.
- mrkstu 6y agoThere is no reason to 'other' people like this. Parties are things that people adhere to, some for a season, some for a lifetime, but they reflect very little about their worth as human beings. I come from a large family and we represent the whole spectrum of political beliefs, in a single generation, and all my sibs are equally kind and selfless, regardless of their political affiliation.
- citizenkeen 6y agoI think they were referring to the elected Republicans, not lay people. I'd be curious to know which elected (R) Senator/Congressperson you would consider kind and selfless.
- war1025 6y agoI'd be curious which (D) representative you think would fit that criteria either. Politicians are egomaniacs almost by definition.
- elbigbad 6y agoYes, that’s what I meant, I should have been more clear.
- mrkstu 6y agoPoliticians as a class aren't well known for their kindness, but Senator Romney, Jeb Bush, Jeff Flake, Lamar Alexander and Will Hurd come to mind.
- tinalumfoil 6y ago
- Imagenuity 6y agoR.I.P. Notorious R.B.G.
- cletus 6y agoGo back 10 years and as apathetic as voters were in much of the developed world, I had a hard time envisioning how these democracies/republics could fall. Boy was I naive. There was a time in the US that as bitter as partisan politics could be there seemed to be a level of decency on both sides and a higher loyalty to the institutions of our government. Nixon resigned in disgrace because it became clear even his own party would not support him. I honestly think that if Watergate happened today, the president's party would defend the president regardless of what happened. You see active and organized voter suppression, politicization of the election process itself and gerrymandering on a massive yet accurate scale. The attitude seems to have set in that the ends justify the means. "Look at what the other side does." Abortion in particular seems to be one of those issues where self-described moral voters seem to view anything as justified. Like how anyone can justify to thsmselves bombing an abortion clinic or a church is in any way justifiable is beyond me. The level of GOP obstruction in the Obama era was utterly unprecedented. The filibuster was defended until it was politically expedient to get rid of it. A simple majority for Supreme Court justices is unprecedented, at least in the modern era. Refusing to even hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented and everyone knew that too would be abandoned if ever convenient. Take Kavanaugh's confirmation. Of course a conservative president is going to nominate a conservative justice. Kavanaugh I believe was on the Federalist Society's list of 25 potential nominees where they expressed no preference among the 25. The hearings produced some pretty serious baggage for Kavanaugh (ie Ford's accusations). He could've had his nomination withdrawn (or he could've withdrawn himself) and been replaced with another conservative justice with no such baggage but that didn't happen. What you have is privileged white men, in particular Trump and McConnell, who didn't want to lose face by backing down. Arguably they didn't like the idea that Kavanaugh, another white man, would be held accountable for something that he simply wouldn't have been 20 years ago. So getting him confirmed became a way of rubbing this victory in the face of opponents. This is what I find utterly unfathomable: so much of Trump's support is essentially religious. By any objective measure, Trump is a reprehensible human being. How any "moral voters" can look passed that because abortion I would never have predicted. It's utterly indefensible. And this is what concerns me the most: it seems like Trump can do nothing that will rock his base. Arguably colluding with foreign governments, his love affair with despots and tyrants, the political scapegoating of the poor and immigrants and the dog-whistle (some would say steam-whistle) politics of white supremacism. It's so depressing. So yeah, it's weeks until the election and the standard used to stall Merrick Garland's nomination is completely forgotten (of course). That seat will be filled by the election. McConnell has already come up and said Trump's nominee would get a vote on the Senate floor. Personally I don't generally have an issue with conservative jurisprudence. At its core, it's a belief the the Constitution is literal. It says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. If you want it to say something else, there's a process for that (ie a constitutional amendment). Personally I find the "living document" interpretation of the Constitution to be nothing more than populism. This can be taken too far. Constitutional literalism was used in the post-Civil War era (ie the Redeemer era) to dismantle the rights of former slaves. As you see in this thread, Scalia is scapegoated by some of the Left as a hater but this is (IMHO) an ignorant view. Read the man's opinions. What does sadden me is the utterly self-serving, completely hypocritical and utterly inconsistent "the ends justify the means", institution-eroding and obstructionist approach that will inevitably lead us there.
- emmelaich 6y agoOnly after reading about this did I realise that RBG was Catholic. There would have been a lot of familiarity of thought and philosophy in their backgrounds. In some part, it makes it easier to disagree. Some of the arguments have been going on for centuries.
- slg 6y agoRBG was notably Jewish. I don't know where you got that she was Catholic. Scalia was Catholic if that is the cause of the confusion.
- aj7 6y agoReading what??
- IncRnd 6y agoOnly after reading about this did I realise that RBG was Catholic RBC was raised Jewish. Later, after her mother passed, she became non-observant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#:~:text=Although%20Bader%20was%20raised%20in,the%20death%20of%20her%20mother https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#:~:text=Al....
- emmelaich 6y agoThanks for the corrections all. I misread an article; her client was Catholic. https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/ https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/
- dang 6y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24523014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24523014.
- tomcat27 6y agoTrump will win! sorry.
- blondie9x 6y ago293 days the Senate didn’t vote on Merrick Garland because it was an election year. Can they wait 45 now?
- casefields 6y agoIf it was controlled by Democrats I 100% guarantee they would.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Hnrobert42 6y agoThere is nothing good left in this world. I don’t plan to kill myself, but I don’t see much value in living.
- abawany 6y agoThe last 4 years have been very dark but I hope the following quote gives you a better perspective: "Take a moment. Breathe. And then we fight for our country the way she always did for us. Or we will lose everything." https://twitter.com/MaryLTrump/status/1307109748744114177?s=20 https://twitter.com/MaryLTrump/status/1307109748744114177?s=...
- yazaddaruvala 6y agoThe other quote that pairs really well with this one: “We don’t inherent the world (our country) from our parents. We have it on loan from our children.”
- Hnrobert42 6y agoIt is for this reason I have chosen not to have children.
- yazaddaruvala 6y agoThere might be some miscommunication. The quote isn't literal about your children. Weather we as individuals choose to participate or not, our lives aren't an end, the story continues with the royal our children. Either we: (1) set them up for success at our expense; (2) set them up for success at no expense to us; or (3) set them up for failure to benefit ourselves. Sadly so far, too many of us as individuals have been choosing (3). Hopefully enough of us as individuals have been choosing (1) and overall it balances to (2). However, currently its looking more and more like in aggregate we are ending up with (3).
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
- hota_mazi 6y agoIt's depressing how much better Republicans are at politics than Democrats are. Because of that, they will get their way.
- tstrimple 6y agoIt'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.
- ailun 6y agoSometimes I read comment sections on conservative websites. They say the exact same thing except with the parties reversed.
- tstrimple 6y agoYes, 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.
- ailun 6y agoI said nothing about both sides being equally wrong, that’s something you projected around my comment. I was sharing a completely true observation. It’s a really common sentiment for people everywhere. To me, it’s a separate and unrelated idea that partisans on “both sides” have similar thoughts about strategy. It has nothing to do with which side is right about an issue. Don’t you think it’s interesting that there are people who have the exact mirror image of your thoughts? It doesn’t make you curious, or reflective? Personally, for any sort of meme like this, I’m automatically skeptical of the idea behind it, just because of how often I see it thoughtlessly repeated.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- neycoda 6y agoI can't believe the amount of hate and flaming and demonization of a lady I've seen online as this one, she cared about people and the poor and the abused, I think our country is losing its way, and I don't know when we'll ever see her kind of compassion on the bench again.
- strikenow 6y agoit is time to strike while the iron is hot: * round up all the asshole vcs && sv companies that paid $$ to burn down our cities and imprison their asses * anyone that produced false/misleading covid information needs to be imprisoned NOW * all SIH orders should be revoked today * remove nancy pelosi (ideally in chains) * any asshole posting videos to twitter of burning down police precincts needs to be immediately arrested and given a 20 year sentence - hint hit all the sv companies that pay these assholes first * institute cifius rules on any company that bails those out that are burning down cities; institute the same rules for those that have mandatory racial classes or those that employ D&I people YOU FUCKED UP LIBERALS - ITS TIME TO PAY!
- strikenow 6y agosuck ass liberal fuck
- rhastings 6y agoYou get what you deserve you liberal fucking piece of shit. Fuck you un-American asshole!
- rhastings 6y agoSUCK DICK RUTH!
- rhastings 6y agoEat shit and die liberals!
- Oricle 6y agoOh fuck off, I can tell by her name she is a filthy jew pushing anti family, anti Christian, anti man etc etc agendas. Turkish jew, not isralites either! And I dont even know who this person is! All from reading 1 sentence about her! Prove me wrong? Go on! Time for people wake up to theis over 2000 year old war!
- grugagag 6y agoLong term I think we're good, eventually somehow things will settle. Short term it's going to be horrible no matter what outcome in the November elections, the country appears divided beyond repair. Two steps forward one backwards as the saying goes but it appears we're now taking more like ten backwards.
- alkonaut 6y agoThese justices should be appointed by 2/3 majority in both chambers. That way we’d be talking about RBG now rather than the replacement.
- bryanmgreen 6y agoDamn. Time to watch “The Supremes” episode of West Wing and cry.
- no1name 6y agoGood news!
- alkonaut 6y agoI’m pretty sure that if this was a D congress and a conservative dying then Republicans would simply not acknowledge the death until January. The weekend at Bernie’s solution.
- ThinkBeat 6y agoI really liked her and her opinion was often something I learned from. I do think there should be a mandatory retirement age in the Supreme Court. I also think so for being president or governor. I think that RBG was laser sharp till the end but I can think of many presidents and wannabes that are and were not. I don’t want that to devolve into a political debate over specific candidates. It is just a fact that on average health and cognitive abilities and flexibility decline with age. An for one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in the world you need to try and ensure someone who is still on top of their game. For POTUS we have a law stating the minimum age for the president. Since we already have that imposing a maximum age is reasonable and not ageist Or I would support doing away with both and define a series of physical, cognitive tests as well as knowledge of the world and general knowledge. All of which would score a candidates suitability for the job. To be administered by a non partisan agency that is aggressively independent from new or old administrations. That would have weeded out some horrific presidents we have had. And will have.
- d0ne 6y ago11 hrs after this was submitted: 1627 points and 1263 comments yet no longer on the front page. A moderator, please explain.
- gjs278 6y agothey didn’t feel like dealing with the users freely expressing themselves and causing fights
- singemonkey 6y agoNot at all surprised at most Republicans trying to justify their hypocrisy. A party that once stood for values now only represents the basest of values - a tribal need to won at all costs. The era of the US is coming to an end, Anericans have lost all moral authority, and the world has discovered over the last 4 years how exist without the US being central.
- jgowdy 6y agoMcConnell has already released a statement saying there WILL be a vote on a Trump nomination.