Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died (npr.org)

I'll be honest - after the last few months I don't know if I trust an armed American populace any more than an armed government. Simply putting guns into the hands of vigilantes doesn't necessarily lead to a freer state. I certainly don't want idiots like that couple in St. Louis to have even more firepower.

They're not going to turn that down just to mess with Trump, this is way bigger than Trump.

This is the next logical step.

Wow, being a bit insulting there. I am stating how it works. The Senate Majority leader can do it. That's how it works. Supposed to doesn't really matter when talking about what will happen.

Ultimately a legislator's job isn't to respect precedence or case law. It's to create new law (and presumably precedent).

I don't think your point is unfounded, I just think arguing for a legislator to behave like a judge takes away from that point (unless you have a good argument why they should, but I think including that argument would be good at that point).

And yes, I agree, the norms have gotten way shittier over recent decades. Both sides participated in this, back to the character assassination of Robert Bork, and the dems reneging on their promises around the Reagan migrant amnesty and probably before.

It is hypocritical and childish to put that all on one side.

Sure, it may be very hypocritical to fill the seat before the election, but has politics not been hypocritical? And in "norms", the refusal to have a hearing on Merrick Garland is not the first example. Congress flouting "norms" goes back centuries.

This is nonsense. Trump got three million fewer votes than Clinton.

Had Reid not pulled the 'nuclear option' the filibuster from the minority would stop the confirmation.

Regardless of which side you're on - I don't think that's a worthwhile basis for political discourse and shouldn't be the modus operandi for what basically determines the development of a country.

Then again, you're right of course - the fact that McConnell and other don't actually overstep in legal terms just shows that the rule set isn't suitable for the current political climate in a time which is shaped by disregard of norms and mutual respect.

And which was very much worried about and warned against by the founders, even if they immediately fell into it themselves.

- Factually correct. Reid did end multiple filibusters.

- Unbiased - this is an iterated prisoners dilemma in that each side is forced to assume the other will make a worse action given the opportunity.

Why is this being downvoted?

Well, this is how you become what you're fighting against.

https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/

To put it another way, the size of the House, Senate, and Presidency are determined by the constitution. The Judiciary is the only branch where it's size can be increased without a constitutional amendment, which could favor populism, regardless of who is in power, if it's expanded significantly.

Being as small as it is could speak to how the government has a tendency to concentrate/centralize power, even if it's relatively easy to spread that power out.

The US Constitution is explicitly anti-democratic, and it always has been, as the founders intended. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that's what it is.

Just for fun, here's another irrelevant quote:

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

- Ruth Bader, on whether the Senate should hold hearings and a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland

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.

All that stuff is held up in congress - they need the senate judiciary committee and the senate to approve a judge. That's it.

People are downvoting because they're unhappy with the situation but my stating it gives them a target. But on the other hand, I'm not super worried about internet points.

There's a possibility of a block of republicans who are anti trump (romney, collins, murkowski at least) might try to spike it, but McConnell has already said Trump's nominee will get a vote. I guess we'll see if they can cooperate enough to push it through.

Grassley, Murkowski, Collins, and Graham have said they oppose a vote, but that might be lip service and there's a difference between "opposing a vote" and not voting. And pence gets a tie breaker if its a tie.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2719115/Senate-SC...

Also:

1. Don't impeach a president in an election year.

2. If dems wanted their adversaries to respect unwritten norms, maybe they should have refrained from baselessly accusing the nominees of gang rape (Justice Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas).

3. A SC Judge vote needs BOTH WH and Senate. That was not the case in 2016 regardless of who said what. That is the case this time. It's the President's prerogative to nominate, and the Senate's prerogative to confirm.

4. This time, it would also most likely be a contested election. So not having a full supreme count will be a disaster.

Btw, I am NOT a fan of McConnell. But this case is very different.

Obama was not a lame duck when Scalia died. McConnell et al redefined the term to suit their needs. As they will no doubt redefine it now.

And the response is to demand something that actually would be unprecedented: packing the senate? Which only Democrats have done before, under circumstances where it was obviously to coerce the Supreme Court into deciding cases differently. Acting like Democrats hold the moral high ground here is utterly absurd.

Which isn't to say that there's no point in purporting to do so: you may hope to require a politically costly public vote (avoidance of which was a significant feature of the Garland no-hearing: with nobody else "on the record," outrage focused solely on the politically-safe McConnell). How effective this is isn't really clear though: voters seem to usually want "their side" to take full, uncompromising advantage when they are on top, and increased polarization means that the fear of alienating independents/moderates isn't as much of an issue, because there aren't any of them left.

Rules and procedures such as the filibuster are weaker still, as they require only a majority of a single house, and no cooperation from the President. We've seen that borne out as the parties out of power became more likely to use the Senate's procedures to stall the party in power, and the fairly quick recent dismantling of those procedures in a bipartisan fashion.

Constitutional amendments can do all sorts of things and their high barriers to passage make them solidly entrenched, but it's very difficult to imagine any issue commanding the necessary supermajorities to pass an amendment on any subject in today's America.

As for Democrats or Republicans in power after the election curbing this kind of partisanship, I wouldn't bet on it. There may be some pushes to try to codify

Of course it does! The Constitution splits the nomination/confirmation process between two political branches. The process is supposed to be political!

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?

https://www.mediamatters.org/national-review/national-review...

They’ve shown up at elections, they’ve shown up for local elections, they’ve worked for every single advantage in power they could get. I mean these are the chaps who suffered a massive electoral defeat to Obama the first time and found their mettle by saying “one term president” like a mantra. They converted that into a fight for every micro meter.

Eventually anyone m would also realize that “winning” (at all costs) is the strategy that works and adopt it. The best strategies get adopted by market players.

The media environment for the past many decades now ensures that bipartisanship won’t work either.

Maybe it’s an incorrect cultural reading on my part,

I am more annoyed by the fact that the supreme court has become a political arena. Making laws should be the responsibility of the elected legislator. A court, any court, should merely arbitrate on the conformity of legal disputes to these laws. If they acted that way, no one would really care who gets nominated to the supreme court. It is because the supreme court has taken the habit of ruling on matters that should be left to the legislator and effectively to make new laws that it has become a bitter fight for nominations.

I see the same power grab happening in Europe and am equally worried about it. No power should be given without accountability.

American politics right now is full-on us-versus-them, and who has the biggest numbers. McConnell is in Kentucky and ahead in the polls, and he’s smart enough not to full-on troll the left with a flat-out fascist.

The left will respond as if he did anyway, but they’ll have a lot less success in convincing conservatives it’s a bad move if the judge is not beyond what most conservatives will support. That line has shifted far to the right (or, to the far right) over the past 30 years.

I guess I’m saying that opinions on an “inoffensive conservative justice” is a bimodal distribution, and McConnell’s right hump is higher.

It's apocalypse for the democrats.

The looming court seat was a very effective driver of votes for Trump in the previous election, at least that's the conventional wisdom. So have a go at seeing if that will work again. You can also spin it as being respectful, serious, and considered by waiting.

Even if you end up losing the Presidency, and even the Senate, you're still in power for enough time afterward to make an appointment.

The only things I could think of working against that would be: the idea that you just make the appointment immediately and tout it as another success to your base, or perhaps a fear that since it's Ginsburg's seat that's vacant, having it open is actually a more mobilizing force for Democrats. There's also, I suppose, the possibility that you make the move right away on the theory that this upcoming election is likely to be contested and could reach the Supreme Court.

The number of qualifications needed in order to establish this "precedent" should tip you off that it's manufactured expressly to gain a political advantage.

Routinely?

Each party is a coalition of interests whether it's a particular minority, class, etc. They have to at least pander to every part of their coalition, otherwise they don't show up to vote. If nothing gets done, they can simply flail their arms, yell, scream and blame the other party. The important thing is making it look like they are trying.

Each party also has a coalition of large donors who expect a lot more for their money than mere pandering and aren't fooled by the tactics used for the previously mentioned coalitions. Parties without donors die, so this is a existential requirement.

This is essentially why voters never get what they want and donors always do.

If there was an instance where the other party did this the GOP would be slapping them around the ears with it. So since they’re not doing that, I assume there’s no instance they can use.

I absolutely think that Democrats should expand the court, but (along with substantially reforming the filibuster) I don't have great confidence in Senate Democrats to actually do it if the opportunity presents itself.

The Supreme Court isn't a coffee club. The justices being on their toes and constantly being challenged by opposing ideas will lead to better outcomes. Friendship is a process of synchronisation, it sits in opposition to the best outcome for the system.

And yes, I pay a lot of attention to Supreme Court decisions.

-Washington Post

  36% 9-0
  10% 8-1
  20% 7-2
  11% 6-3
  23% 5-4

Most cases tend to be unanimous or nearly so (0-1 dissenters), and only about ⅓ of cases are contentious (5-4/6-3/5-3). This has been decently stable over the past few decades.

Disagree.

The system is confrontational; it's shaped this way so as to reduce the chance of buddy-buddy underdealings and negotiation.

The system is confrontational so as to promote fairness and prevent bias.

Creating yet another environment by which the judges can exert control over the law by winning personal favors among each other must be avoided. That's exactly why things are set up such way within the US government, Supreme Court not-withstanding.

All that said : I have never considered the supreme court to be fair and unbiased. Compromising for the sake of cooperation, sure. Effective, definitely.

> It does not appear that whatever friendship that existed between Scalia and Ginsburg impacted their rulings and dissents on the matters before the Court.

You'd never really know. That's why it should probably be well avoided.

This works as long as both sides are acting in good faith, and everyone involved (i.e. everyone in a society) is on more or less equal footing. If either of those conditions don't exist, fixing them is more important than maintaining the civil discourse. That's true for many reasons, and one important reason is that in those situations, insisting on the equality of reasonable political positions with unreasonable ones is an effective defense of the status quo, which makes the problems harder to fix.

Neither of these conditions exist in the USA right now, for the record.

SC justices are appointed for life for the very reason to help ensure they are not political but instead apply the standards of legality.

It's not perfect, but it's less politics than when people campaign for constant election/re-election to a position.

What may seem natural for you isn't for others.

Thus system are designed considering that.

Sure. There are fantastic individuals out there.

The key to fair systems is to structure the system in such a way that does not rely on the recruitment of extraordinary individuals who are filled to the brim with integrity.

The key is to create a system of checks and balances that disallows obvious unfairness by means of liability isolation and personal separation, etc.

I'm glad your friendship with whoever Scott is worked out despite whatever problems on HN, but all the example tells me is that Scott (and to a smaller degree, yourself) have some level of personal integrity; but facts and statistics generally say that systems that can be gamed, will be -- and that's without a motivating factor other than a personal win; include motivation like money and power and the scales tip much more radically against those with integrity.

For every 'Scott' there are 10 folks without any integrity that'd have gladly re-instantiated their friends' accounts that had been banned AS LONG AS it didn't mean hurting their own position.

That's exactly why 'fair' systems are generally built in such an isolated fashion so as to reduce inclusion of bias and personal feelings.

This strategy single handedly abolished more KKK members than anything else. Contrast to the extremists of today like BLM who are having the opposite effect and pushing more people to racism. We’re going backwards. Then again, it’s not like BLM is actually motivated by their clever branding, so this is unsurprising.

If you didn’t know this or chose to ignore it, your model is incomplete and you don’t understand one side.

Every vote for that party in our zeitgeist is motivated in no small part by active malignancy. It's the defining characteristic of their leader, unavoidable and undeniable, and as of the convention the party literally has no platform except to serve and support his whims. So there is absolutely a right and a wrong side to things right now.

They're also fully in support of the immigration policies that have led to things like the very well-documented child separation.

In what ways are those not denying someone's humanity?

"It's time to stop arresting these filth only to have them released the next day and start just putting them down"

--seen literally yesterday in a popular politics IRC chatroom, to general agreement. I think many people don't entirely realize how bad it's gotten.

But genuinely do appreciate your reply - makes that little voice in my head feel "less alone"

What was interesting/depressing was my "how about a creed" post was getting a few up-votes, then the moment I replied below saying maybe I was a "crap anti-rascist", my OP started to get down-votes.

Text hadn't changed, but by putting some context around it, it was read differently.

Then I lost your thread.

Then I agreed with you, "we're terrible"

So question comes down to, did I have the moral obligation to act?

Personally I lean towards yes, but can at least understand where the people who say no might be coming from.

While I agree that silence is violence at its face is literally false, that's the general principal it's meant to invoke, that injustice can only be stopped when bystanders cease to tolerate it. The victim cannot stop it, and the perpetrator won't. Thus those who tut tut and move on with their day become complicit in allowing it to continue.

That is what the commenter is feeling vaguely guilty about, and it's a healthy thing to feel. I know I have guilt in my past where I have failed to help someone when I had the opportunity, and that guilt that comes from recognition of that has driven me to be less of a bystander later in life.

I don't disagree with you on that. We can say "A can lead to B" and "A can counteract B".

I'm lost at the leap to "A is B" and "NOT(A) by COLOR = B".

I could speak or not speak, and even do so out of negligence or spite. My choices may have effects and consequences, but violence does not mean "anything with effects and consequences".

It feels too much like the missing piece is "this is what we say the word means now, QED". It's all too convenient that a conversation can be shut down by calling it violence. Implicating people is divisive. By it's own logic, redefining violence to include speech is itself a form of violent speech because it causes conflict.

My judgement may not move the conversation any further. I'm too emotionally wound up. I could do without the personal experience of the community which spawned this artificial divide. But then again, it's all I have, so I might as well use the hard lessons as well as the good times.

Never been in the same room as the founder of the (so-called) Christian Coalition. I hope. Grew up in Athens Georgia around that time, it was considered a small town. It wasn't all bad, but it took thousands of miles and decades of years before I could enter a Christian Church without wanting to run away.

Perhaps Newt was a catalyst in Washington, but I think the broader cultural change was less related. Even as a lifelong liberal, I recall the 2000s as being a period of liberal snark toward conservatives, especially in the media and on the emerging Internet (I know some will argue that conservative policies are horrible so they deserved to be treated this way, but such arguments miss the point of civility: you debate bad ideas; you don’t attack people). It wasn’t the sort of ruthless display we see today, but it was relentless and it went on for more than a decade. Conservatives generally maintained decorum, but eventually the dam burst and the resentment cascaded over and Trump arrived on the scene to personify the middle finger that many on the right wanted to give to those they felt mistreated them for so long.

None of this is meant to impute blame or innocence on anyone, but to serve as a framework for understanding how we got here as that is prerequisite for getting black to a healthier state.

I mean christ, Trump _still_ brings up Vince Foster.

Not because he was bad - he wasn't. He was an honorable man. So honorable he got rid of earmarks, the allocation of funding to particular projects.

The result of this being that there is very little reason for people to cross the aisle. Previously, you had to keep working with the other party to keep the gravy train on schedule. Now?

For bonus points, ask if the cost of gridlock are higher or lower than the cost of the earmarks.

more to the point, i just heard a real example of the kind of empathy and compassion we need by nba hall-of-famer isaiah thomas on tnt's "the arena" airing right now, of all places.

it was in relation to LA county sheriff alex villanueva calling out lebron james to put up money for the recent shooting of two sheriff deputies in compton. this is a powder-keg issue here in LA right now. the knee-jerk reaction would have been to put down the sheriff for an unreasonable emotional outburst, but isaiah basically extended his hand and narrated how he understood where the sheriff was coming from, even if the demand was not exactly well thought out.

that's really hard to do in the moment, and my respect for isaiah just rose significantly because of it.

This doesn't strike me as a universal truth. It's good as a general principle to test your ideas against ones that challenge them and make sure they're as robust as possible -- but if that "challenging idea" is "your group has no right to exist," then it's not reasonable to argue "if merely hearing that you have no right to exist threatens your model, that's a warning sign that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable," is it?

My point was more like, if person X really does feel that way, then sure they can retract themselves from discussion. But they should do so knowing it’s their own failing/weakness and not blame it on the other person being “toxic”.

We don’t have to tolerate the intolerant, right?