
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died - joubert
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87
======
stickyricky
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 Antonin are living it
up.

~~~
goldcd
Was so lovely after reading the article, that the point that stuck with me,
aligned with your comment right at the top.

Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up
for.

~" We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider
your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning. My
views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come to an informed
position, I can honestly take forward "

As I typed that, I could hear the happy-clappy sounds of some mocking-utopia
ringing in my ears - but goddamnit, it doesn't sound too hard for us to each
put it into action. I'm as guilty as the next person, but I'm going to try
going forward.

~~~
KittenInABox
I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I'm a black man and the
opinion is that I'm an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this
reasoning to abuse me, then I may be ethically correct to not listen or keep
myself in their presence.

Or, say, I'm a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services
should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may
be actively emotionally harmful for marginalized people to be listening to
toxic opinions that they are worth nothing.

(EDIT: To be clear I think listening to opinions I disagree with in good faith
is a good thing that we need more of in society. However, I also believe
marginalized voices are, by sake of being marginalized, are forced to engage
in a significantly higher volume of significantly more emotionally taxing
opinions, and therefore may need to protect themselves, and that isn't wrong.)

~~~
philwelch
It's easy to come up with these kinds of excuses for not tolerating the
opinions of people you disagree with. If you disagree with me about abortion,
you are either trying to murder babies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil
to you) or you're trying to control women's bodies (and hence I shouldn't have
to be civil with you). If you disagree with me about health care reform,
that's a life and death issue and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you.
If we disagree about a military intervention, that's a life and death issue
and I shouldn't have to be civil with you.

Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia disagreed on just about all of these
issues and got along fine. I don't think that's because they didn't care about
their respective principles and about the issues that were at stake. I think
it's because, as a point of fact, we have to live in a society with each other
regardless of our differences. And most of those differences are genuinely
rooted in good or at least understandable intentions in the first place.

~~~
maxlybbert
I enjoy John Cleese’s speech making the same point (
[https://youtu.be/wXCkxlqFd90](https://youtu.be/wXCkxlqFd90) ).

~~~
lawnchair_larry
This is amazing. Thanks.

------
adzm
> According to her granddaughter Clara Spera, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent
> wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

[https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/13071014175225610...](https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1307101417522561025)

~~~
alex_young
There would seem to be precedent for this now.

Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated
in March of 2016, and because Scalia's seat had become vacant during an
election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the
president [0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination)

~~~
notafraudster
McConnell immediately clarified his position was "the Senate shouldn't
consider a nomination in an election year if it's controlled by my party and
the president isn't in my party" \-- no kidding, this was his actual
clarification.

~~~
rayiner
That is, in fact, the actual practice. The constitution splits the appointment
between the presidency and the senate. When the same party controls both,
vacancies are filled immediately. Otherwise, the party controlling the senate
can exercise its heckler’s veto:
[https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-
sid...](https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-
republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/)

What happened with Garland had happened numerous times before:

> In short: There have been ten vacancies resulting in a presidential
> election-year or post-election nomination when the president and Senate were
> from opposite parties. In six of the ten cases, a nomination was made before
> Election Day. Only one of those, Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s nomination
> by Grover Cleveland in 1888, was confirmed before the election.

By contrast, if Trump doesn’t put up a nominee, it will be literally
unprecedented.

~~~
dbingham
The National Review became dishonest propaganda some time ago. They are going
back 150 years to find a precedent and ignoring many more recent precedents.

[https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-
vacancies-i...](https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-
presidential-election-years/)

~~~
rayiner
Explain to me what’s “dishonest propaganda” about the National Review article?

1) Going back to the 1800s is routine in the legal world to understand what is
accepted practice in our system. After all, the relevant rules haven’t changed
since 1789. Aren’t examples from people who created this system particularly
relevant to understanding how it’s supposed to work?

2) The SCOTUSblog article goes through the exact same examples as the National
Review article for the 20th century. The only difference is that the National
Review article looks at whether different parties control the
Presidency/Senate. What is “propaganda” about that? The Senate and Presidency
are political branches that are supposed to be at odds, potentially. Is there
any reason to assert that this political rivalry shouldn’t extend to Supreme
Court appointments? Is it “propaganda” to even posit the idea?

~~~
dbingham
The article I posted also looked at what parties controlled the Senate and
Presidency and quoted more recent precedents where the parties were split, and
the president got to appoint.

Moreover, stopping a vote entirely? That's unprecedented. Had there been a
vote on Garland, he almost certainly would have been appointed. Many of the
moderate Republicans in the senate, facing elections, would not have been able
to justify voting him down to their constituents.

For the National Review to leave those pieces out is dishonest. I'm also not
just referring to that article. The National Review has been dishonest
propaganda for a while, making dishonest arguments that manipulate the facts
(usually by omission or careful selections as here, but occasionally outright
lying) to justify the actions of what has become a fascist party.

------
mrkstu
For 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.

~~~
8note
When push comes to shove, republicans fall in line.

Susan Collins will go on record saying she thinks trump jr is just too good of
a candidate to not accept the nomination, and that'll be the end of it

~~~
redler
As the glib aphorism goes, Democrats want to fall in love, and Republicans
want to fall in line.

------
bonzini
Of course a president should not appoint a judge on the last few months of his
term, should he?

~~~
xwdv
He absolutely should it is his job.

~~~
nscalf
Since you clearly don’t get the context, the Republicans made this a giant
issue when Obama had an open Supreme Court seat towards the end of his term.
Let’s call a spade a spade: the republicans have no regard for the
constitution or laws of the land if they benefit from ignoring it. They will
now ignore the precedent they set and place a new Supreme Court justice.

~~~
tick_tock_tick
It's more like the congress exercised there constitution power to do fuck all
if they wanted. Just cause it's a shitty thing doesn't make it un-
constitution. What happened to Obama was his party didn't have the votes to
approve someone so it didn't happen that's it.

~~~
kennywinker
If they hold hearing for a 45 nominee before the election, they prove they
were acting in bad faith. The expectation is that the president gets to
appoint judges during his term, unless there is a reason to deny the nominee.
By denying that they challenge the power of the executive branch. I.e. Does
the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the
same party?

~~~
rootusrootus
> Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from
> the same party?

This is the next logical step.

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

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

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

~~~
bargl
I've seen people who follow this line, and I respect it. It's when it bleeds
over into the followers of those politicians that I get frustrated.

------
mindfulhack
After 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.

------
ianai
I 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
> 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.

~~~
cwhiz
The Senate doesn’t actually have to vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice.

> and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
> Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court

There is nothing except precedent to say the President can’t just directly
appoint justices. And then when the appointments are inevitably challenged,
who would ultimately rule on it? The Supreme Court. Tah dah. This is how
democracy falls apart.

~~~
Jtsummers
"Advice and _Consent_ ". I'm pretty sure "consent" is where we get the need
for Senate confirmation, and you'd have to strike that word to allow a direct
appointment.

~~~
cwhiz
You can lawyer consent to mean a lot of things. Many legal scholars and
lawyers argued that the Senate did consent in 2016 when Obama made his
nomination. He sent his nomination to the Senate, and they thought about it
for 9 months without rejecting, and therefore they consented.

It’s way more open to interpretation than you’re suggesting. It has never been
challenged.

~~~
unsignedchar
Yes, it is not hard to imagine how Trump would have interpreted that precedent
if the situation were reversed and the Senate was under Democrat control

------
tasty_freeze
One 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.

------
spodek
I 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
Old people lowkey flirting is so wholesome.

------
areoform
There 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)

------
server_bot
Sad 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.

------
hprotagonist
_Barukh 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.

------
WhompingWindows
Why 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?

~~~
hajile
Given the appointment age of most justices, 20 years and life aren't much
different. Furthermore, lots of justices resign a couple years before death.
RBG was practically begged to resign, but alternately believed Hillary would
win and/or thought she could outlast Trump.

The idea is similar to tenure. You can do and say what you believe without
influence and pressure from either party. It also dodges influence peddling
preparing for leaving office. For example, in the defense department,
officials will make recommendations and then leave office and profit from
those same companies. If you're in office for life, this common (and almost
impossible to prevent) kind of corruption becomes basically a non issue.

The federalist papers would shed light on such things, but actually reading
them (and the wealth of nations)is likely to turn you into an independent who
dislikes both parties.

~~~
salawat
Can confirm. Read source material, completely changed my perspective on the
American System and what it was intended to be.

Both parties are a blight that should never have gotten enshrined the way they
are.

------
baryphonic
I mean, holy sh __. This election is going to be insane.

~~~
tasty_freeze
Even 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
So... Tom Cotton?

------
alasdair_
Just 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

~~~
thebigspacefuck
I’m sure he realizes how outraged people were by that decision and to not make
the same mistake this time.

~~~
rexf
hahahaha

His words mean nothing. Unfortunately, he does what he wants, not what he's
said. His past proclamations are merely inconvenient distractions.

------
hota_mazi
It's depressing how much better Republicans are at politics than Democrats
are.

Because of that, they will get their way.

~~~
tstrimple
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.

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

~~~
tstrimple
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.

~~~
ailun
I 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.

~~~
tstrimple
I've been a conservative. My whole family is conservative. There is no secret
I just haven't clued in on in their platform that's holding me back from
understanding them. I understand them and their motivations just fine. They
are largely just wrong and ignorant on so many issues. There is a reason that
it was found Fox News viewers know less about current events than people who
don't watch any news at all. It was designed to be that way to build an
electorate which refuses to hold their politicians responsible for anything.
This level of misinformation was specifically designed by Republicans (Roger
Ailes) to prevent Republicans from ever turning on Republicans again
regardless of their conduct or behavior. It's all recent history. It's all
documented. I don't know why we have to pretend their plan to subvert the
democratic process has been anything but a terrific success for them. I don't
know why so many people are interested in pretending that both sides are the
same.

This doesn't even get into the damage that Republican Newt Gingrich has done
to our legislative process, or the unprecedented obstruction put forth from
Republican McConnell. Republicans are literally destroying our democracy, and
it's right there in plain sight for everyone who isn't a Fox News addict to
see.

[https://www.psypost.org/2020/07/consuming-content-from-
foxne...](https://www.psypost.org/2020/07/consuming-content-from-foxnews-com-
is-associated-with-decreased-knowledge-of-science-and-society-57499)

[https://www.businessinsider.com/roger-ailes-blueprint-fox-
ne...](https://www.businessinsider.com/roger-ailes-blueprint-fox-news-2011-6)

~~~
ailun
Yeah, again, we’re not talking about the same thing.

------
mmaunder
Worked right to the end even with her health challenges. What a role model.

~~~
jeffbee
She 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
Clearly the congress at that time was acting in bad faith and would have
delayed her successor being appointed, as they did with Merrick Garland.

~~~
jeffbee
True, but in 2009 the congress was acting in a fairly reasonable way, and
Ginsburg had already been on the bench for 29 years at that point. It was
major failure of Democratic leadership that at a time when they controlled all
branches of government they failed to make any significant reforms, such as
admitting new states, expanding the size of the House of Representatives, or
appointing judges.

~~~
tomrod
Hindsight 20/20.

~~~
manquer
Hubris and poor leadership. It was always rare to have control of all
three.you use it when you have it.

Instead of acting on key agenda, there was hardly anything done _given_ the
power they had.

Say what you will about the republicans with similar control they will
absolutely enact a lot of changes in their agenda. I may not like their agenda
at all, but I can appreciate how they go about it.

~~~
cmrdporcupine
From up here in Canada it was weird to watch. Obama spoke really loud about
his agenda and desires and was extremely popular and they controlled all three
and then turned around and didn't really get much done for fear of the
moderates in their own party, or something, I don't know. The ACA looks
really... like... huh? Neo-Feudal health care.

Or they weren't really interested in doing the things they said they were
going to do and in fact the Democratic party is in general far more to the
right than it claims to be to win elections. And I think that's the more
likely and more concerning aspect of American politics is this "ratcheting
effect" towards the right; the Republicans come in with a fairly extreme
agenda (in the context of the rest of the western world's politics), do a
bunch of fairly extreme things, then the Democrats gain some modicum of power
and do very little to reverse it, and the cycle continues.

It doesn't bode well for the upcoming election.

~~~
manquer
Spot on. Bernie's rise in 2016 was partly in response to that . The actual
left is powerless despite the response Bernie got in both his runs without
large contributions.

Joe Biden is very much in the centre at best, given the new focus on trying to
woo republican voters the party is shifting to the right.

~~~
cmrdporcupine
Unfortunately the Obama era (or maybe the coming Biden gov't) reminds me of
another prominent historical liberal/social democratic gov't that came to
power in a declining but powerful imperialist country with huge promises of
ending war, resolving social and economic injustices, etc. but then governed
weakly with poor compromises and bad leadership...

That gov't I'm thinking of would be the Weimar Republic.

------
hindsightbias
And so it ends.

I weep for those without, you will not have the recourse those of the last
half century had.

------
TheAdamAndChe
The 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.

~~~
jariel
Widespread conflict will get Trump elected, this is already proving the case
as people see 'violence' instead of 'protesting' Trump is getting momentum.
Don Lemon on CNN literally asking for people to calm down due to this fact.

Edit: Trump's support grew consistently as public support for BLM waned in
face of the 'perception of violence' [1] - which Trump's team sees and is why
he's pushing a 'law and order' message. The risk of BLM is that 'empathy' will
easily be overwhelmed by 'concern' if pictures of violence play out on their
TV screens every night. People will always chose public order over almost
anything else.

[1] [https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/trump-black-
lives-m...](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/trump-black-lives-matter-
poll-407227)

~~~
Trasmatta
> this is already proving the case

Except it doesn't seem like the violence and rioting so far has actually
helped Trump:

[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-law-and-order-
me...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-law-and-order-message-isnt-
resonating-with-most-americans/)

~~~
jariel
Your reference doesn't support your point.

Trump's 'Law and Justice' messaging may not be helping, but his approval
ratings have improved as the protests have continued and none of the data in
the article diminishes that.

It doesn't surprise me that many people support Biden as the mostly likely to
'quell tensions' etc. - however - that's not the same thing as the instinctive
response to seeing widespread violence on TV.

Listen to Lemon [1]:

"“It’s showing up in the polling. It’s showing up in focus groups. It is the
only thing right now that is sticking,” Lemon said ahead of "CNN Tonight" on
Tuesday. “The riots and the protests have become indistinguishable."

This I believe.

More directly from Nate Silver here [2] where he is unsure there is a
correlation, but since that article, the meme has continued and Trump has
drifted up for no other apparent reason along the same trend line.

I don't like the man, the 'trend' is not good. Just a few weeks ago it looked
like this would be over, now, there are many paths for him to come to win.

A showdown over Ginsberg replacement may be the decisive battle.

[1] [https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513742-cnns-lemon-
warns-o...](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513742-cnns-lemon-warns-of-
democratic-blind-spot-on-riots-it-shows-up-in-the-polling)

[2] [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/could-a-backlash-
agains...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/could-a-backlash-against-
black-lives-matter-hurt-biden-the-two-dont-appear-linked-so-far/)

------
d0ne
11 hrs after this was submitted:

1627 points and 1263 comments yet no longer on the front page.

A moderator, please explain.

------
ThinkBeat
I 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.

------
kelnos
Here'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
High 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
> _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.

~~~
ALittleLight
I've just discovered that he's already made a statement regarding RBG's death:

"President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United
States Senate."

[https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-
relea...](https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/mcconnell-statement-on-the-passing-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg)

------
a2tech
This year keeps on giving.

------
grugagag
Long 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.

------
yangmaster
I hope that RBG's replacement will be selected and sworn after Inauguration
Day – but I have a chilling feeling that it will happen before.

------
drainge
Vote

~~~
rvz
for

~~~
worker767424
Pedro

------
BooneJS
Unsurprising.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/reaction-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/reaction-
ruth-bader-ginsburg-death/)

> 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
Such a lack of empathy from him.

I am deeply disappointed at anyone celebrating her loss.

------
Hnrobert42
There is nothing good left in this world. I don’t plan to kill myself, but I
don’t see much value in living.

~~~
teruakohatu
Sounds like you are depressed. You should talk to someone about it.

~~~
Hnrobert42
Thank you. I concluded the same and have begun to look for a therapist. RBG
has been a hero of mine for 15 years. The impact of her death was my first
thought when Trump won. For me, at this time, the glass has 10% of its
capacity. But I will find help to see that as 10% full.

~~~
teruakohatu
I am pleased you are looking for a therapist.

Always keep in mind you are not responsible for, nor could you change, RBG's
lifespan. You are not responsible for the outcome of an election. If Trump is
reelected it is not because of you, if Biden wins it is not because of you.

------
pdxandi
This is awful for multiple reasons.

------
alkonaut
I’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.

------
michaelsbradley
Eternal 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.

------
MichaelZuo
Rest 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.

------
alkonaut
These 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
Damn.

Time to watch “The Supremes” episode of West Wing and cry.

------
blondie9x
293 days the Senate didn’t vote on Merrick Garland because it was an election
year. Can they wait 45 now?

~~~
casefields
If it was controlled by Democrats I 100% guarantee they would.

------
CalChris
A great lady.

------
tyre
For 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__
> 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
Precisely.

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__
Being 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?

~~~
nsajko
To be fair, it is hypothetically possible that Corbyn did the best he could
have done, considering he was being terribly smeared, even vilified, by all
the big media organizations in UK AFAIK.

~~~
mhh__
Field a candidate with a riposte then.

The Corbyn fans love to talk abut media smears but they neglect to mention
that he never polled above 0% net approval in his entire term as leader.

Starmer, his replacement, is a man of intellect, principle, and service to the
public - he is already doing better than Corbyn ever did - i.e. the media who
didn't like Corbyn were writing amicable praise of Sir Keir (the mail love a
nickname) even when he was making a mockery of their man (Boris)

~~~
flamble
The reason for that is that Starmer is a corporate stooge who doesn't present
any threat to the merciless extraction of value from the working class. Of
course they have no objection to the kind of competition which would have no
adverse effect on their interests if it prevailed; their praise is evidence of
Starner's complete lack of merit.

The media besmirched Corbyn BECAUSE he was a decent man with the interests of
the public at heart, which is unacceptable to the owners of the media
apparatus.

~~~
toyg
_> Starmer is a corporate stooge_

Now, now. Starmer might not be a militant marxist, but he spent a good chunk
of his life fighting for workers' rights in court. He also served faithfully
in the shadow cabinet under Corbyn - are you saying that Corbyn chose a
"corporate stooge" as his shadow minister, and on the hottest issue of the day
at that (brexit)?

One of Corbyn's lackings was that he was unable to make friends in his own
party, to the point that half of his own rank & file literally _sabotaged_ him
at the last election. By calling good people all sorts of unwarranted names
we're only going to see a repeat, and $deity knows this country deserves
better than yet another Tory government.

~~~
flamble
The section of the rank and file that sabotaged him did so because they are
possessed by a vile ideology that virulently opposes any concession by the
powerful to the mass of the people. Being unable to befriend any of that
metastatic species redounds greatly to Mr Corbyn's credit. They are not "good
people".

Now Starmer may not be ideologically committed to the ruthless exploitation of
the public like they are, but at the very least he harbours delusions about
the possibility of compromising with a right wing, both within his party and
in the media, that is implacably and rabidly opposed to any project of
positive reform. They will never relent in their shameless calumny and perfidy
until Labour's program has been completely neutered.

------
yyyk
RIP. 2020 just keeps getting worse.

Also, the US needs a maximum age limit for SCOTUS justices.

------
RivieraKid
This is really depressing, even for a non-American. The only question is
whether they appoint a new justice before election or after.

------
Imagenuity
R.I.P. Notorious R.B.G.

------
syedkarim
Does Trump have enough time to get a new justice nominated and confirmed?

~~~
mikeyouse
Realistically, they have until the last day of the current congress which runs
until January 3rd, 2021. The Senate has 37 working days remaining in 2020. It
would be an amazing feat if they manage to do it, but you bet if only as an
animating fight for the party faithful who are historically depressed right
now, they're going to try.

~~~
kelnos
How would it be an amazing feat? Trump already has a list of candidates, and
all it takes is 50 Senators to say yes (plus Pence breaking a tie if they
somehow don't get 51). There's no requirement to allow any but the most
perfunctory of floor debates, and the filibuster has been eliminated for
SCOTUS justices.

Guaranteed McConnell will ram this through with plenty of time to spare.

~~~
erichurkman
Trump's campaign has been blasting SCOTUS picks to their email list for weeks.
From the latest one:

    
    
      > Did you hear the news? President Trump has released his shortlist for candidates for the Supreme Court. Here is a sneak preview of a few of the names on the list:
      > Senator Tom Cotton
      > Senator Josh Hawley
      > Senator Ted Cruz
      > And more…

~~~
jessaustin
Wow Hawley and Cotton have risen meteorically. I would have half-expected
Hawley's crypto-unionist populism to have kept him off such a list, but he'd
surely be better than the others mentioned. Somehow, he ran for MO Attorney
General _without_ promising to further brutalize minorities. Within two years
he was in the Senate and now within two more years he would be on the Supreme
Court? Wow.

------
vmception
Rest in Peace RGB

Rest in Peace American Republic

------
jgowdy
McConnell has already released a statement saying there WILL be a vote on a
Trump nomination.

------
op03
Remove 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
What. People were acrimonious in the medieval ages. They didn't have like
counts. This is such total bullshit.

~~~
op03
I 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
Maybe 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.

------
glenstein
I wonder if he will go down in American history as a more poisonous senator
than McCarthy.

~~~
peteradio
He was just playing the incredible hand dealt him.

~~~
Hnrobert42
I don’t think so. He could play it differently, that is, with integrity.

~~~
peteradio
> with integrity.

What exactly do you think politics is?

~~~
xg15
Yeah sorry, do you want fascism? Cause that's how you get fascism.

~~~
AuryGlenz
It’s not fascism to do things the way the rules/law specifies.

You may think it’s immoral or gross, but it’s in no way fascism. I hate how
much that word gets thrown around nowadays.

~~~
ardy42
> It’s not fascism to do things the way the rules/law specifies.

That's not a workable definition. At many points in history fascists were
literally the ones writing the rules and laws.

Also, it's not like the law is software proved with formal methods to prevent
fascism. There are bugs and exploits that are only prevented from being
problems by the integrity of political actors, and some of those can be pretty
trivially discovered. The more integrity you remove, the higher the chance you
end up with a configuration that results in something like fascism.

------
deathgrips
Unfortunately 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
The problem is that those activists and politicians you refer to are a
reflection of what way too many voters genuinely want.

~~~
malandrew
Is 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
Politics 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
I started agreeing with you when you said politicians were failing people.

I disagree sharply about the riots, though. I think bad actors use things like
social media (and even traditional media) to whip people into a frenzy. That's
where the violence comes from, and it is rooted in politics more than a
reaction to it.

~~~
chiefalchemist
But those bad actors are the result of what? Satisfaction with the system?
They recruit who? Otherswho are satisfied?

I agree. Those violent events are complicated. But bad actors are the sole
cause is an over-simplication.

------
elbigbad
This 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.

~~~
tinalumfoil
> They are the most conniving and soulless individuals that exist

The Trump Republicans are far better in terms of war crimes. Not "better in
terms of war crimes" is some sort of crowning achievement, but its hard to get
much lower than srone striking Americans on foreign soil. To say Trump isn't
an improvement over Busch just boggles my mind.

~~~
altcognito
He revoked the transparency surrounding drone strikes, so you don't know how
often they happen.

He pardoned war criminals found guilty by our own military courts.

He is setting up companies to steal oil from Syria and has always stated that
we would be fools not to take those military earned resources.

The state kills unarmed people in the US everyday, I see drone strikes in war
zones as as far tinier issue than all of the above.

~~~
ekianjo
> He pardoned war criminals found guilty by our own military courts.

I am unaware of that, do you have any reference?

------
throwaway6000
Guess the republican SCOTUS replacement.

~~~
adzm
Merrick Garland?

~~~
BurningFrog
That would be the interesting move!

------
throwaway6000
"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"

~~~
crispyambulance
I don't think it's a "new" political flashpoint. RBG was 87, with cancer, it's
not a surprise.

McConnell has certainly laid plans for an attempt to force a crony through as
quickly as possible before the election. Hopefully it won't happen before
Trump gets flushed.

~~~
mgkimsal
Doesn't need to happen before election - whoever wins the election, the
current folks will be in office until January. They can press this forward
before or after the election.

------
emmelaich
Only 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
RBG 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.

------
cletus
Go 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.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
All the baggage you speak of was entirely unproven, and unprovable since they
were 30 year old accusations.

All this in an election year where there was hope that maybe Republicans
wouldn't have the votes afterwards.

That seems more towards corruption than legal proceedings to me.

Note during the last year of Obama the democrats did not have the majority, so
it's not really a fair comparison (what McConnell did would have been
impossible otherwise). But still, this is a norm, not a law, in the same way
that, with or without another Trump nomination, Biden could legally appoint
justices until he has the majority. There's no law unfortunately setting the
size to 9.

~~~
cletus
> All the baggage you speak of was entirely unproven

The best any reasonable person can argue is that Kavanaugh was being less than
forthright. His demeanour resonated for many with what a guilty man would do
if caught. Worse, he seemed to think he was above these proceedings. Consider
this exchange [1].

> Note during the last year of Obama the democrats did not have the majority,
> so it's not really a fair comparison

Sure it is. If hearings were held and a vote held on the Senate floor where
the nominee failed to secure nomination then that's that.

The problem was that McConnell wasn't sure he could defeat the nomination.
Having a vote would put a number of GOP senators in a difficult position to
vote down the nomination. So rather than risk a vote he might lose, which
would have a political cost, he simply refused to hold hearings let alone a
vote.

If you think that's the same thing because the Democrats didn't have a
majority you're at best delusional and at worst intellectually dishonest.

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=autkkRE2GhA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=autkkRE2GhA)

------
tomcat27
Trump will win! sorry.

------
dboreham
Presumably post-election, Biden can appoint, and the new democrat senate can
confirm, 2 justices.

------
awat
:(

------
mitchbob
I'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.

------
meundies9
Alright, 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.

------
gautamcgoel
This 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
It'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
Ginsburg herself tarnished the legacy of the supreme court by becoming
political

[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/07/ruth-bader-
ginsb...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/07/ruth-bader-ginsburg-
risks-her-legacy-to-insult-donald-trump.html)

------
phobosanomaly
Due 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
I 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
Bush likely wouldn't have won 2004 without 2000 though.

------
xmly
Time to vote! Time to vote! Vote!

~~~
rvz
Question is for...

------
dexterdog
This 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
No, you have it backwards. He increases his chances by appointing another
conservative, pro life judge.

------
bleepblorp
I think we can all be certain that whoever is appointed by the Federalist
Society and approved by Mitch McConnell will make sure Trump wins a second (or
third, or fourth, or fifth) term.

The American experiment as a free and democratic country is over.

Unless you want to live in a real world version of The Handmaid's Tale, get
the fsck out if you still can.

~~~
bluedevil2k
Stop with these kind of comments. Do you honestly think the Supreme Court
would allow a President to win a 3rd term? “We can all be certain” should be
translated to “I feel like making a crazy rant here”. “Experiment is over” -
the election is in 7 weeks, let’s hold off on the “get out while you can”
comments until it’s over.

How confident are you in your statement that the “American experiment is
over”? Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get
“Yes”, you can have “No”.

~~~
bleepblorp
Understanding how modern societies fail was my professional field.

The United States is following in the footsteps of many countries that
transitioned from democracy to authoritarianism. The judiciary was the last
remaining bulwark that had been slightly slowing the erosion of democratic
rights. With the judicial balance of power now in the hands of a president who
has both taken steps to conduct an unfair election and has repeatedly
expressed desires for extra-constitutional powers, it is naive in the extreme
to imagine that American democracy is not mortally wounded.

America is turning itself into a cross between apartheid-era South Africa and
Putin's Russia. While Trump has accelerated this trend, it is a trend far
larger than him and it will not be stopped even if Biden somehow becomes the
next president. Even if there is a Biden victory and some solution in the
Senate, there must be no doubt that a 6-3 GOP USSC will overturn any pro-
democratic, or anti-authoritarian, reforms that might be approved by Congress.

I reiterate, the alarm bells are ringing for America as a free society and it
is time for anyone who doesn't want to live in The Handmaid's Tale to get out
because things aren't going to get any better.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
What do your studies say about creating new states to gain more votes in the
senate? Something that's already been introduced in the house.

Worse even its being created by shrinking the zone that was purposefully
created to not be a state. Puerto Rico would undoubtedly also give 2 more
democratic seats, but at least it's a large American territory, not something
we're artificially creating for more votes.

~~~
bleepblorp
The general problem with any kind of pro-democracy reforms is that the people
who need to approve reforms are precisely the people who benefit from current
antidemocratic policies. No one will approve reforms that will end their
careers.

Some of the US' democratic problems could be helped by splitting up the more
populous states so their populations have more representation in the Senate
and Electoral College, but any such plan would need to be approved by flyover
state Republican Senators who benefit handsomely from the status quo.

Given that the GOP party line--echoed by both McConnell and Trump--is that
fixing US democracy would be a Democratic power grab, meaningful reforms are
dead on arrival. This is especially true as any meaningful reforms would, by
definition, remove the Republican party's disproportionate hold on power.

Sadly, I don't see a way out of this. With no route for peaceful reform, the
usual escape route for irreconcilable differences within a country is civil
war, but the human geography of the United States makes another civil war very
unlikely. An inexorable slide into deepening authoritarian
oligarchy/kleptocracy seems unavoidable.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
>Some of the US' democratic problems could be helped by splitting up the more
populous states so their populations have more representation in the Senate
and Electoral College, but any such plan would need to be approved by flyover
state Republican Senators who benefit handsomely from the status quo.

Do you not see how this could be done by the republican party as well? Split
Texas up into 4 parts, make 1 part primarily Democrat, the rest republican?

Besides, I guess your studies are more focused around theory, and not the
actual legal government structure in the US. I miss understood. The whole
point of the senate was to avoid tyranny of the majority, otherwise 3 states
could control the other 47.

~~~
bleepblorp
The functional manifestation of the American democratic deficit is that the
Republican party is able to maintain a near-permanent lockhold on power
despite commanding only the support of a minority of the population. Any
reform that maintains the status quo by protecting the tyranny of the
Republican minority is not beneficial.

Notwithstanding the original purpose of the Senate, shifting population
demographics mean that, by 2040, 70% of the Senate will represent the
interests of only 1/3rd of Americans. The other 2/3rds of the US population
will be forced to live with control over 30% of the Senate[1]. This is not
avoiding tyranny of the majority; it is allowing the (Republican) flyover
states to dictate to (Democratic) urban areas how they should organize their
societies and live their lives.

Meaningful democratic reforms in America mean making its institutions reflect
the makeup of America, and that means less representation for rural areas and
fewer Republican in power.

[1]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/b...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-
thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/)

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
Near permanent?

Obama was president 4 years ago.

Your comments also call into question if you understand that the house is
determined by popular vote. The senate alone can not force anyone to live
their lives differently. It would require control of both the house and the
senate to do that.

And you said near permanent control while being the minority, when Republicans
last had won the popular vote for control of the house in 2016.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections)

------
Kattywumpus
If 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-war...](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-
court/democrats-warn-gop-don-t-fill-supreme-court-vacancy-2020-n1234885)

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
This 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-s...](https://today.law.harvard.edu/if-democrats-win-in-november-
should-they-pack-the-supreme-court/)

~~~
nsajko
Consider 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.

~~~
yyyk
[https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?...](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=26247&LangID=E)

"Venezuela: UN report urges accountability for crimes against humanity"

“The Mission found reasonable grounds to believe that Venezuelan authorities
and security forces have since 2014 planned and executed serious human rights
violations, some of which – including arbitrary killings and the systematic
use of torture – amount to crimes against humanity,” said Marta Valiñas,
chairperson of the Mission.

“Far from being isolated acts, these crimes were coordinated and committed
pursuant to State policies, with the knowledge or direct support of commanding
officers and senior government officials.”

~~~
nsajko
I appreciate the link to the UN's press release for the new report, but note
that my point stands: the attacks on Maduro happened long before this report,
so long before they could have been justified.

Furthemore, considering the attacks on Maduro included a smearing campaign
from media and governments all around the "Western" world, I will read the
Mission's report with a heavy dose of skepticism. (Of course, on the other
hand, it wouldn't surprise me if the Mission's report was honest.) An example
warning sign: it seems strange to entrust the Mission to only three people.
Another example, the Mission relied heavily on blogs and similar for the
report.

~~~
yyyk
I could have just as easily pointed out that Maduro didn't allow the
opposition to run in 2018, or that Venezuela has been starving since 2012,
etc, but the your comment coupled with news of the recent report was too much
of a contrast not to point it out.

I'm not going to keep commenting about this though. Ultimately, I can't
convince people who do not want to be convinced. The Western far Left supports
murderous clients much like the governments it condemns - probably moreso. But
the West's governments are actually elected, and they operate in the real-
politick world. The far Left does its support for tyrants voluntarily as part
as its struggle against other Western factions - treating the locals as pawns
even more than the Western governments do.

~~~
nsajko
I am not in any way invested in the Maduro regime, but it would be simply
stupid to "want to be convinced" of something like this. When I saw _a lot_ of
journalistic coverage of Maduro that is not just non-neutral in the
presentation, but even uninterested in presenting facts (at least in manner
that the reader could verify); so basically just Maduro-bashing - of course I
am going to be skeptical.

The uncertainty with the Venezuela-related facts is not the only thing that
raises suspicion; the other thing is how deficiencies of democracy (even when
the issues are much more clear cut) in non-socialist South America are under-
reported compared to Venezuela (take, e.g., the coup in Bolivia, or how the
former Brazilian president was seemingly framed, or the Pegasus spyware). One
has to wonder why is it that all the big media organizations and most Western
governments try to intervene in Venezuelan politics, and not, e.g. in such
problems in some Indian state or in, e.g., some ex-USSR republic. I'm not
claiming I know the answer, but it seems that some powerful but hidden
motivations do exist. (I guess the simplest answer for the journalism part is
that journalists need something sensational to write about and it's easy and
acceptable to bash on some socialist government.)

~~~
yyyk
From my cursory readings over the last few years, there has been far more
coverage of Brazil than of Venezuela, and inasmuch there has been coverage of
Venezuela it focused on the US-Venezuela relations angle (which is comfortable
to the regime) rather than the 'Venezuelans are dying' issue (which isn't).

But again, this is a distraction. There will always been some excuse by the
far Left which is basically 'look over there!'. The issue is not press
coverage, but the crimes of the 'socialist' regime (that's how they call
themselves, but not the practice, which is why Chavez's daughter's wealth is
estimated in the billions).

------
magicroot75
She lived well from conception to a natural death.

------
RickJWagner
RBG 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.

~~~
michaelmrose
I 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.

~~~
marcusverus
>Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a
hard pass but he also lied under oath.

Source?

~~~
michaelmrose
[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2019/9/15/20866829/b...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2019/9/15/20866829/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-confirmation-hearing-
deborah-ramirez-new-allegations)

------
neycoda
I 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.

