Macroscopic quantum objects cannot exist if P ≠ NP? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-astounding-link-between-the-p-np-problem-and-the-quantum-nature-of-universe-7ef5eea6fd7a

<comment><USER2> For anyone interested, here's Scott Aaronson's response to the paper: [http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1767#comment-103591](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1767#comment-103591)

<comment><USER3> I understand that people get a little passionate about their fields of study, but the tone of Aaronson's response is wildly inappropriate. Phrases like "a common novice mistake" and "as if he just emerged from a cave" are unnecessary and entirely condescending. This style of discourse fosters a really awful and exclusive atmosphere, and I wish it wasn't the norm.

I don't know this guy at all, and I'm guessing he's pretty respected in his field, but at the end of the day, he doesn't have to be a jerk to get his point across.

<comment><USER4> I find the dismissive tone and holier and thou attitude that Aaronson has garnered more that bit of notoriety for really detrimental to the growth of both our collective understanding of QM and our understanding of computability. if knowledge is truly power, lording your knowledge over a peer is paramount to oppression. A bit dramatic, of course, but not completely without warrant.

This maybe a bit of a kumbaya, everyone hold hands argument, but I'm going to make it. Its not as if the number of people that have the ambition to collect the wealth of knowledge required to characterize(even incorrectly) any perspective overlap between computation and quantum is exactly a huge working set. I don't consider it reasonable to shit on someone's work so indiscriminately in this space where its rather hard to be right and quite easy to be wrong.

Prima facie, the paper was accepted for publish in a peer reviewed journal (Physical Science International Journal), and. from all the terse looks of it I've encountered, is likely erroneous on a fundamental level. Highlighting this is not meant to imply that peer-review is a good/bad measure of academic muster, but rather an indicator of how complex comprehending and qualifying such theories might be.

My point is, even in its incorrectness, a bravo for thinking so wildly is likely in order.

Disclaimer: I'm a quantum chemist and computer scientist. I'm also not the biggest fan of Scott Aaronson, so I might be harder on him that is likely deserved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not buying it

1 - P=NP is a mathematical problem. It has nothing to do with Physics. Physics has to do with Mathematics but one should be _very careful_ when extrapolating (range, constraints, etc).

2 - Nature has no problem whatsoever solving complicated equations. Our mathematical models are the ones who suffer to model simple everyday stuff in Physics. Turbulence and Navier-Stokes equations, electromagnetic propagation, the way lightning goes through the air, etc.

<comment><USER6> Unless, of course, our entire reality is running on a very powerful, but not infinitely powerful computer, and the Great Programmers in the Sky decided to cheat by putting in a hack that cuts off quantum behaviour at a larger scale...

Unlikely, but cute...

<comment><USER7> _Or_

The granularity of the simulation of our reality is the Planck length. This constraint does not apply to the real, underlying, reality within which our simulation is embedded.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We can't directly observe superpositions (macroscopic or otherwise) because when doing so, we become entangled with the state of the observed object. The only thing special about macroscopic objects is that it is difficult to prevent or postpone their entanglement with the environment.

Think about Schrödingers' gedankenexperiment from the cat's point of view. It finds itself to be either comfortable or dying by toxic fumes; it can't see the superposition because it is _inside_ of that superposition. The same thing happens to any observer trying to look at a quantum superposition.

<comment><USER9> Box closed: two cats, one scientist. Box opened: two cats, two scientists, each sees one cat. Entangling yourself with the superposition pulls you into it.

<comment><USER10> >Entangling yourself with the superposition pulls you into it.

following that logic and taking cat as the observer, Mr.Cat PhD, the superposition is that doubles the number of cats (and PhD's :).

Yet it works in the other direction - entangling a cat (a macro-object with macro-state) with superposition had already destroyed the superposition well before box is opened.

>> it can't see the superposition because it is inside of that superposition.

it can't see the superposition because the superposition is gone because he got entangled with it.

<comment><USER9> The cat is pulled into the superposition by interacting with the results of the detector and the poison vial. There are two cats from the "outside", but from each cat's perspective it sees only a single "random" outcome. Superpositions _aren 't_ destroyed - you are subsumed within them.

<comment><USER10> >There are two cats from the "outside", but from each cat's perspective it sees only a single "random" outcome.

in a given Universe there is only one cat. A human observer just doesn't know what the state of the cat in his Universe. The cat knows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This hypothesis seems to rest in the flawed idea that quantum processes must unfold as if by a step by step calculation which consumes time, in the ordinary temporal dimension. And so certain complex state changes are impossible simply because they don't have enough time to execute within some predetermined slot, or something like that. Time in the simulation is not the same as time in the simulator. Come on, this is not even basic science as much as basic sci-fi! :)

<comment><USER12> Surely Schrodinger's Paradox implies cause and effect?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wait what? What this article is arguing is totally absurd - just because we can't model certain physical objects, they cannot exist?! That's like saying that since we can't model three gravitational objects interacting (i.e. the numerical solutions diverge, therefore to properly model the system, we would require increasing amounts of memory and time), therefore they cannot exist.

I'm not saying that the physical claim is wrong - I'm just saying that the explanation in the article is severely lacking/logically inconsistent.

<comment><USER14> I'm a simulationist. I believe that the universe we're experiencing is a simulation made by a far-advanced civilization. So in my reality, if something can't be modeled, it can't exist.

Not saying that this is the truth, just the way I choose to understand things.

<comment><USER15> I think you would have to be assuming that the far-advanced civilization's simulator has the same complexity as the models of computation we can construct. I think that's a huge leap to make. We might not be able to model something due to issues with, let's say, Turing decidability. Unlike us, the advanced civilization's might be able to because their constructable models of computation are strictly more powerful.

<comment><USER16> I think you described what I wanted to in a much better and more concise way.

Thank you for doing that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting and semi-related: [http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?id=140598](http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?id=140598)

Essentially, solving the traveling salesman problem in quadratic time using photon interference -- however, since the photons scale up as N^N, the Schwarzschild radius of the effect means it's not observable in less than exponential time.

</comment><comment><USER18> One part I didn't like is towards the beginning the author says: "Nobody knows why we don't observe these kinds of strange superpositions in the macroscopic world. For some reason, quantum mechanics just doesn't work on that scale. And therein lies the mystery, one of the greatest in science."

But I thought the reason we dont see macroscopic events exhibiting quantum superposition behavior was because of quanutm decoherence? It's just so hard to get a macroscopic situation that hasnt already been observed and collapsed.

But then the author kinda hints at this point later when he mentions: "Physicists have become increasingly skilled at creating conditions in which ever larger objects demonstrate quantum behaviour."

Am I missing something, or is he blowing the problem (and the impact of Bolotin's computational limit theory) way out of proportion?

</comment><comment><USER19> I hope Scott Aaronson blogs about this article, because it espouses several of the wrong-facts he complains about _and then cites him_.

\- Limitations on computers _within_ physics are not limitations on _physics itself_. Analogously, you can simulate system so simple that a computer can't be made in them without your computer unmaking itself. Relevant: xkcd.com/505

\- We do understand why we don't observe superpositions. It all comes down to this thing we call "quantum mechanics", which precisely describes those sorts of situations.

\- The article consistently mixes up NP-Hard and NP-Complete.

> "And how does the universe decide whether a system is going to be quantum or > not?"

Seriously, is this article a satire?

<comment><USER20> An interesting point is that limitations on math (i.e., things that would be true regardless of the details of the physical world) would put limitations on _any_ physics simulations - including hypothetical physics simulations done by someone outside of our universe with potentially different physical limitations.

So the point of the article is something like - if phenomenon-X can't be simulated by anyone, no matter how good their computers become; and if our universe is a simulation (which is a possibility), then our universe won't contain phenomenon-X.

<comment><USER21> The problem is that there is no proof that there is any such thing as something that would be true regardless of the details of the physical world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is radiantly insightful. It makes perfect sense to me. The effect of reading it is like drinking a _Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster_ : feeling like my brains were smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick.

Yes, in real physics solves vastly complex equations fast. That's not enough to discount the point here. There _are_ limits on _physics itself_ : the particles in a cat (presumably one owned by Schrodenger) are so numerous that for all of them to express, within a reasonable time, superpositioning the effects of a single radioactive atom's unobserved state would require particle interactions occur _way_ faster than Planck time.

Nothing moves faster than light. There are a finite, albeit large, number of particles in the universe. Nothing can be smaller than Planck length, and no particle interaction can occur faster than the time light takes to move one such unit. Upshot: macroscopic superpositionining effects cannot occur because it takes too long for full propagation among particles numbering on the magnitude of Avagadro's number.

There's an upper limit to what can happen, because there's only so much stuff and "happen" can only be so fast.

</comment><comment><USER23> The Navier-Stokes equations are also hard to solve, that does not stop fluids from obeying them.

<comment><USER11> Also, how can N bodies orbit each other? Don't they know there is no analytic solution to their problem? Sheesh! (Maybe they are using floating-point?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> An interesting assertion. I don't think it's valid to object that this is just about hard-to-solve equations. As I understand the article, this is the argument:

1) It's not possible to directly observe a macroscopic quantum object. This is because the act of observation collapses the wave function.

2) It's possible in theory to describe macroscopic quantum objects in the solutions to Schrodinger's equation

3) That solution for macroscopic systems is NP-hard

4) A physical theory that can neither be observed nor modeled is "nothing more than [a] nontestable empty [abstraction]"

</comment><comment><USER25> > What's interesting about NP-hard problems is that they are mathematically > equivalent. So a solution for one automatically implies a solution for them > all.

That's a mistake. The author is describing NP-complete problems, which are all roughly equivalent (reducible in polynomial time). NP-hard includes all NP- complete problems, but also includes problems much harder than those in NP- complete, including undecidable problems like the halting problem which aren't even in NP.

<comment><USER26> > That's a mistake. The author is describing NP-complete problems...

Correct. I think that quote basically killed the whole article for me.

<comment><USER25> It didn't kill the whole article for me, although it seems to be a consistent misconception rather than an isolated typo. To be fair, the naming convention is pretty tricky, considering NP-hard contains things outside NP.

<comment><USER27> And the diagram did get the terminology right. The author may need a (better) proofreader, but it wasn't impossible to see what the author meant. They only conflated the names, not the concepts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I thought you could observe quantum effects but only when it was the superposition of all the eigenfunctions? You never observe the ones with a low probability density because they are dominated by the others. And also does it matter if you could solve numerically all of the functions for a macroscopic group of particles if in the end all you would care about is the average value (due to Planck's constant and the uncertainty principle)?

</comment><comment><USER29> I think the explanation for why we don't observe macroscopic quantum phenomena is rather more simple than that, and likely has more to do with the results of a superposition of a large ensemble of possible states than some fairly strained analogy with computation (think of it as something like fourier decomposition of a function).

</comment><comment><USER21> An interesting tidbit:

If the smallest proof for something takes up more than ~10^123 bits, or the fastest proof requires more than ~10^120 operations, it cannot be proven in our universe.

</comment><comment><USER30> _" Nobody knows why we don't observe these kinds of strange superpositions in the macroscopic world."_

Yeah, why can't we observe processes that rely on lack of observation?

<comment><USER24> We can observe processes that rely on lack of observation in the microscopic world. Look up the one-slit and two-slit experiments[0]. In the two-slit experiment, we don't observe which slit the photon takes, but we can observe the interference pattern on the screen.

The two-slit experiment works with photons, but not with bullets, or cars, or baseballs.

[0]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_slit_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_slit_experiment)

<comment><USER30> Hmm, probably fair.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is such a poorly written article. I can't even begin to point out the mistakes. I'm sure Scott Aaronson will write a response and strike this down.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is almost the same as the free-will vs determinism problem. Our universe is deterministic, but computing into the future is NP-complete.

</comment><comment><USER33> By this logic, shouldn't the existence of the universe be impossible since simulating it mathematically in its entirety is infeasible?</comment>


Ask HN: What is China doing with 126.96.36.199? - <AUTHOR> So I'm currently in Shanghai and tried to ping 184.108.40.206, and surprisingly I got a response!
* 64 bytes from 184.108.40.206: icmp_seq=1 ttl=250 time=3.46 ms
* I get a 19ms response from my 4G mobile network
* I get no response from a server in Hong Kong.
I looked it up and apparently it's a APNIC research prefix, so I decided to do a traceroute and got this:
traceroute to 220.127.116.11 (188.8.131.52), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  gateway (172.20.0.1)  0.370 ms  0.204 ms  0.443 ms
 2  126.96.36.199 (126.96.36.199)  1.166 ms  1.157 ms  1.150 ms
 3  22.214.171.124 (184.108.40.206)  3.351 ms  3.350 ms  3.343 ms
 4  184.108.40.206 (22.214.171.124)  4.203 ms  4.204 ms  4.197 ms
 5  22.214.171.124 (188.8.131.52)  5.927 ms  5.926 ms  5.919 ms
My question is why on earth have they routed 188.8.131.52? If I go to 126.96.36.199 it goes beyond the city and fails somewhere upstream. <comment><USER2> 1/8 was reserved for a long time and various entities improperly used it as a private address. It was eventually given to APNIC for assignment use but a few ultra-commonly-used ranges and addresses like 1.1.1/24 and 1.2.3/something were never assigned because they get so much noise traffic and would break so many things.

It's improper for anything to use these unassigned in-theory-globally-routable addresses but there are no real hosts there and lots of local networks use them for random internal purposes. At least one commercial Wi-Fi hotspot uses 184.108.40.206 as a captive portal address.

Here's an incredibly detailed report on the situation on the 1-network: [http://www.potaroo.net/studies/1slash8/1slash8.html](http://www.potaroo.net/studies/1slash8/1slash8.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> So 126.96.36.199/24 doesn't seem to be in the global table from North American carrier perspectives. It's certainly not a routed prefix for any of my machines in North America. The closest prefix I can see an announcement for on a global basis is 18.104.22.168/24 (CHINANET FUJIAN PROVINCE NETWORK).

Like bcoates said, there's a bunch of dumb stuff out there designed by people who barely understood TCP/IP and used non-RFC1918 ranges for customer equipment. Occasionally they leak indirectly into a table that's being redistributed into some mom and pop ISP's BGP announcements, and this happens. The backbone carriers of the Internet all (well, maybe not tata) have much stronger filters than Honest Achmed's used car sales and Internet transit, so they tend to leak only within a country or region.

Occasionally its some ISP internal services and it's done deliberately to have easy to remember IP addresses for techs working on the network. I mean, do you want to have to remember to point SNMP traps to 18.104.22.168 or would you rather only have to remember 18.104.22.168 instead? Then the prefix hits the border bogon filter and remains entirely with that ISP's network.

Now that I think about it, scanning ISPs for known unannounced prefixes in the global table would be kind of a fun project to discover all the little internal services ISPs might have squirreled away throughout their network.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nothing from Shenzhen. From the responses here I think you can rephrase the title "What are (some random provider in Shanghai) doing with 188.8.131.52?" which is borderline irrelevant to everyone, though _bcoates_ ' response was informative. :)

</comment><comment><USER5> Could you guys please stop ping my router?

</comment><comment><USER6> my guess is that mobile networks do something with it, or some mobile network equipment do something wierd.

I'm in Norway and it seem that a telenor (Norwegian telco) box respons to it:

# ping 184.108.40.206 PING 220.127.116.11 (188.8.131.52) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 126.96.36.199: icmp_seq=1 ttl=246 time=67.3 ms 64 bytes from 18.104.22.168: icmp_seq=2 ttl=246 time=57.9 ms 64 bytes from 18.104.22.168: icmp_seq=3 ttl=246 time=77.4 ms 64 bytes from 220.127.116.11: icmp_seq=4 ttl=246 time=76.1 ms

# traceroute 18.104.22.168 traceroute to 18.104.22.168 (126.96.36.199), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 gateway (192.168.1.1) 1.738 ms 1.746 ms 2.259 ms 2 126.96.36.199.tmi.telenormobil.no (220.127.116.11) 58.505 ms 64.686 ms 64.701 ms 3 10.72.52.250 (10.72.52.250) 64.703 ms 64.684 ms 64.718 ms 4 ti0001a401-ae14-21.ti.telenor.net (22.214.171.124) 71.297 ms 71.320 ms 71.316 ms 5 ti0300c360-ae49-0.ti.telenor.net (188.8.131.52) 87.921 ms 87.927 ms 87.921 ms 6 ti3163c360-ae8-0.ti.telenor.net (126.96.36.199) 87.751 ms 44.302 ms 56.143 ms 7 ti3153c400-ae5-0.ti.telenor.net (126.96.36.199) 56.130 ms 56.133 ms 56.112 ms 8 ti3153d400-ae3-0.ti.telenor.net (184.108.40.206) 62.571 ms 69.241 ms 69.198 ms 9 * * * 10 ti3171a210-xe3-11.ti.telenor.net (18.104.22.168) 68.961 ms * _

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm also in Shanghai, on a China Telecom hardline, I get nothing from 18.104.22.168:

PING 184.108.40.206 (188.8.131.52) 56(84) bytes of data.

\--- 184.108.40.206 ping statistics --- 80 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 79915ms

What mobile network are you using?

<comment><AUTHOR> China Unicom (I think) my work also has a Unicom line.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am getting response from 22.214.171.124 from Brazil.

33 packets transmitted, 33 received, 0% packet loss, time 32051 Ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 30.104/37.650/229.784/33.997 ms

</comment><comment><USER9> In the U.S., near AWS East, and 184.108.40.206 times out.

</comment><comment><USER10> That's funny.

I use 184.108.40.206/24 for my home network. Perhaps they're doing something similar.

<comment><USER11> You are part of the reason we have these problems :(

While that's probably never getting allocated at this point, that's also what everyone thought 10-20+ years ago about 22.214.171.124/8 and yet here we are.

When my organisation was allocated from 220.127.116.11/8 a few years back we were constantly seeking out others to remove us from their "bogon" filters blocking unallocated ranges that were static and not being maintained. Including big organisations like Commonwealth Bank of Australia. It was a real pain. Meanwhile the security advantage of this behaviour is highly dubious in my view - just as easy to steal an otherwise valid but un-used (or even used) prefix.

Thanks for reading my rant this far if you did, I'll return you to your regularly scheduled more insightful comments....... now.

<comment><USER12> I worked for a company once where each department had a public IP space, like 97.0.0.x or 98.0.0.x. When I told the network guy this wasn't proper and we should be using 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x he laughed and said "it really doesn't matter, nobody cares". To make all of these networks talk, share, etc they had to use a punch of equipment to tie each one in and then out via a Time Warner Road Runner circuit. This was about 1999 :-)

<comment><USER13> It seems as though the conventional wisdom has changed, because in my large org every device is assigned a public IP and access is controlled by our border firewall.

It's weird how much NAT has changed the thinking about network organization -- if you have the addresses you should get into the IPv6 state of mind -- publicly address all the things!

Now if your org picked 97/98 arbitrarily without actually owning the addresses relying on the fact that you wouldn't actually get routed any public traffic then that's a different story.

<comment><USER14> I too have worked at organizations that have been configured like this. I speculate that pressure on the limited IPv4 allocations has caused many places that had previously been configured with large public IP blocks, to sell sub- allocations, for profit. NAT certainly does enable this practice but isn't the root cause. Sell those IPv4 blocks for $$$ -- who needs their laptop getting a public IPv4 address anyway?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Instagram testing "Direct", standalone messaging app replacing current inbox - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/7/16740280/instagram-direct-messaging-app-test-standalone <comment><USER2> Sounds like a really horrible idea. The thing I want the least is installing another messaging app in addition to FB messenger (which sucks, btw), Skype, Viber, WhatsApp , Google Hangouts, Slack and telegram. Believe me or not, I have a few conversations going on in every one of them.</comment>


Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87 <comment><USER2> 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.

<comment><USER3> 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.

<comment><USER4> 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.)

<comment><USER5> 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.

<comment><USER6> I enjoy John Cleese's speech making the same point ( [https://youtu.be/wXCkxlqFd90](https://youtu.be/wXCkxlqFd90) ).

<comment><USER7> This is amazing. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > 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)

<comment><USER9> 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)

<comment><USER10> 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.

<comment><USER11> 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.

<comment><USER12> 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/)

<comment><USER11> 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?

<comment><USER12> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 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.

<comment><USER14> 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

<comment><USER15> As the glib aphorism goes, Democrats want to fall in love, and Republicans want to fall in line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Of course a president should not appoint a judge on the last few months of his term, should he?

<comment><USER17> He absolutely should it is his job.

<comment><USER18> 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.

<comment><USER19> 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.

<comment><USER20> 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?

<comment><USER21> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> For as worthless as this comment will ultimately be: my thoughts go to her family.

<comment><USER23> 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.

<comment><USER24> 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.

<comment><USER23> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> 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.

</comment><comment><USER26> 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.

<comment><USER27> > 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.

<comment><USER28> 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.

<comment><USER29> "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.

<comment><USER28> 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.

<comment><USER30> 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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> 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.

</comment><comment><USER32> 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.

<comment><USER33> Old people lowkey flirting is so wholesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> 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)

</comment><comment><USER35> 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.

</comment><comment><USER36> _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.

</comment><comment><USER37> 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?

<comment><USER38> 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.

<comment><USER39> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I mean, holy sh __. This election is going to be insane.

<comment><USER31> 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.

<comment><USER41> So... Tom Cotton?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> 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

<comment><USER43> I'm sure he realizes how outraged people were by that decision and to not make the same mistake this time.

<comment><USER44> hahahaha

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> It's depressing how much better Republicans are at politics than Democrats are.

Because of that, they will get their way.

<comment><USER46> 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.

<comment><USER47> Sometimes I read comment sections on conservative websites. They say the exact same thing except with the parties reversed.

<comment><USER46> 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.

<comment><USER47> 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.

<comment><USER46> 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)

<comment><USER47> Yeah, again, we're not talking about the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Worked right to the end even with her health challenges. What a role model.

<comment><USER49> 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.

<comment><USER50> 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.

<comment><USER49> 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.

<comment><USER50> Hindsight 20/20.

<comment><USER51> 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.

<comment><USER52> 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.

<comment><USER51> 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.

<comment><USER52> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> And so it ends.

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

</comment><comment><USER54> 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.

<comment><USER55> 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)

<comment><USER56> > 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/)

<comment><USER55> 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/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> 11 hrs after this was submitted:

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

A moderator, please explain.

</comment><comment><USER58> 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.

</comment><comment><USER59> 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.

<comment><USER60> 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.

<comment><USER59> > _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.

<comment><USER60> 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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> This year keeps on giving.

</comment><comment><USER62> 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.

</comment><comment><USER63> 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.

</comment><comment><USER64> Vote

<comment><USER65> for

<comment><USER66> Pedro

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> 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."

<comment><USER68> Such a lack of empathy from him.

I am deeply disappointed at anyone celebrating her loss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> There is nothing good left in this world. I don't plan to kill myself, but I don't see much value in living.

<comment><USER70> Sounds like you are depressed. You should talk to someone about it.

<comment><USER69> 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.

<comment><USER70> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> This is awful for multiple reasons.

</comment><comment><USER72> 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.

</comment><comment><USER73> 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.

</comment><comment><USER74> 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.

</comment><comment><USER72> 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.

</comment><comment><USER75> Damn.

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

</comment><comment><USER76> 293 days the Senate didn't vote on Merrick Garland because it was an election year. Can they wait 45 now?

<comment><USER77> If it was controlled by Democrats I 100% guarantee they would.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> A great lady.

</comment><comment><USER79> 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.

<comment><USER80> > 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.

<comment><USER79> 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.

<comment><USER80> 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?

<comment><USER81> 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.

<comment><USER80> 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)

<comment><USER82> 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.

<comment><USER83> _> 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.

<comment><USER82> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> RIP. 2020 just keeps getting worse.

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

</comment><comment><USER85> This is really depressing, even for a non-American. The only question is whether they appoint a new justice before election or after.

</comment><comment><USER86> R.I.P. Notorious R.B.G.

</comment><comment><USER87> Does Trump have enough time to get a new justice nominated and confirmed?

<comment><USER88> 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.

<comment><USER59> 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.

<comment><USER89> 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…

<comment><USER41> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Rest in Peace RGB

Rest in Peace American Republic

</comment><comment><USER91> McConnell has already released a statement saying there WILL be a vote on a Trump nomination.

</comment><comment><USER92> 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.

<comment><USER93> What. People were acrimonious in the medieval ages. They didn't have like counts. This is such total bullshit.

<comment><USER92> 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.

<comment><USER94> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> I wonder if he will go down in American history as a more poisonous senator than McCarthy.

<comment><USER96> He was just playing the incredible hand dealt him.

<comment><USER69> I don't think so. He could play it differently, that is, with integrity.

<comment><USER96> > with integrity.

What exactly do you think politics is?

<comment><USER97> Yeah sorry, do you want fascism? Cause that's how you get fascism.

<comment><USER98> 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.

<comment><USER99> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER100> 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.

<comment><USER101> The problem is that those activists and politicians you refer to are a reflection of what way too many voters genuinely want.

<comment><USER102> 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.

<comment><USER103> 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.

<comment><USER104> 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.

<comment><USER103> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER105> 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.

<comment><USER106> > 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.

<comment><USER107> 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.

<comment><USER108> > He pardoned war criminals found guilty by our own military courts.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> Guess the republican SCOTUS replacement.

<comment><USER8> Merrick Garland?

<comment><USER110> That would be the interesting move!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> "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"

<comment><USER111> 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.

<comment><USER112> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> 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.

<comment><USER114> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> 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.

<comment><USER116> 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.

<comment><USER115> > 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)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER117> Trump will win! sorry.

</comment><comment><USER118> Presumably post-election, Biden can appoint, and the new democrat senate can confirm, 2 justices.

</comment><comment><USER119> :(

</comment><comment><USER120> 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.

</comment><comment><USER121> 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.

</comment><comment><USER122> 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.

<comment><USER123> 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!

<comment><USER124> 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)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER125> 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).

<comment><USER126> 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.

<comment><USER127> Bush likely wouldn't have won 2004 without 2000 though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER128> Time to vote! Time to vote! Vote!

<comment><USER65> Question is for...

</comment></comment><comment><USER129> 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.

<comment><USER130> No, you have it backwards. He increases his chances by appointing another conservative, pro life judge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER131> 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.

<comment><USER132> 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".

<comment><USER131> 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.

<comment><USER116> 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.

<comment><USER131> 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.

<comment><USER116> >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.

<comment><USER131> 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/)

<comment><USER116> 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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER133> 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.

<comment><USER134> 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/)

<comment><USER81> 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.

<comment><USER84> [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."

<comment><USER81> 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.

<comment><USER84> 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.

<comment><USER81> 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.)

<comment><USER84> 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).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER135> She lived well from conception to a natural death.

</comment><comment><USER104> 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.

<comment><USER136> 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.

<comment><USER137> >Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath.

Source?

<comment><USER136> [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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER138> 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.</comment>