This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That still doesn't explain the slow walk, though. The DC opinion was so broad that all SCOTUS has to do is what they're probably going to do anyway — issue an opinion that recognizes immunity in certain circumstances but not others and then kick the case back down to the trial court without saying anything about the facts of that particular case. Then the trial court's ruling gets appealed and the high court doesn't have to rule on it until next year.
It's more likely that they're just running behind. I don't think anyone has any theories on why the other 17 cases are taking so long.
If you expect a glorified GVR or per curium (or even a per curium-with-dissentals), perhaps, but I'll put money that SCOTUS will be doing a good deal more than that. Punting the case back to a lower court without seriously delineating the bounds of any immunity risks the matter popping right back up in a way that they still can't ignore, possibly before the election even if the trial itself wouldn't have gotten out before then anyway. Trump (or Smith) will appeal regardless, but the part where we're here because multiple different federal judges couldn't forsee any problems with papering over limits on prosecution of a former President with "prosecutors themselves are constitutionally bound to not abuse their office" (and somehow managed to avoid laughing).
For contentious issues and conventionally-argued questions, there may not even be an clear boundary of the decision for months after oral arguments. And I fully expect Roberts will be trying til the last second to try to fumble together a 'bipartisan' consensus.
I do agree other causes are part of the generally slower pace -- court-watchers regularly point to increased security procedures post-Dobbs-leak as part of a trend of slower, later opinions. I just can't come up with an explanation for why people expect a complex issue that was argued near the end of the last session to be more heavily prioritized other than the political ramifications, and they're not even good political ramifications.
I wasn't trying to imply that. I think they will delineate limits but I'd be surprised if they get into specifics. Trump's argument is that he's entitled to absolute immunity, and I doubt the justices would go for that. I also doubt they'll let the circuit court decision stand, which means that they're going to have to delineate the bounds of presidential immunity. The problem is that,.since no alternate standard was proposed, neither side has made substantive arguments under that standard, and the current court has been reluctant to make substantive rulings based on arguments the parties didn't make. I'm not saying that they'll punt, just that any decision they give isn't likely to change much in the short term.
I think the defense basically conceded that acts while President while not acting qua president are not entitled to immunity. Other acts are unless there is impeachment and conviction. I suspect that is what the court will decide.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link