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 -
I think the court wants to avoid the courts being used to prosecute the previous President whenever a new President is elected. Many parts of the executive and the judiciary enjoy some form of immunity from the law when carrying out their duties. If you treated the executive purely as normal citizens I think government would become non-functional. I suspect maybe Libertarians would advocate for this but I don't think it would have mainstream support. For example if the executive enforces a law that is latter found to be unconstitutional but has arrested people for violating the law if we treated the executive as normal citizens then surely the executive should face justice for false imprisonment.
As a libertarian I would happily settle for "courts find thing unconstitutional, government officials make minor or no changes continue doing it, they go to jail".
Right now it just seems like officials get to play a game where if they lose in court they get a stern warning, and they can seemingly keep getting stern warnings forever, the only escalation might be that some people suing them start getting settlements paid with taxpayer dollars. The official in question might get fired, but only if they aren't part of a public sector union (why do we allow those again?)
For this specific case, I'm not really a fan of going after publicly elected officials. And you don't really have to in order to maintain rule of law. If Biden orders a seal team six hit on a rival and you can guarantee that everyone except Biden in that chain of command will be sent to jail or executed for carrying out the order then you can make sure the order is never carried out. My vague and bad understanding of military orders is that is mostly how things already work.
How can you make sure of that when Biden also has the pardon power?
Presidents can't pardon state crimes such as murder.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes.
More options
Context Copy link
There is an absolute abundance of situations that are just in that category of "government official does something, courts later rule it unconstitutional (or even just not statutorily supported)" that would completely change the dynamics of how government operates if those officials are then subject to criminal penalties. You can go to the blockbusters like NSA/CIA with intelligence stuff or the detention/rendition/interrogation stuff, but even just stuff like DAPA, student loan forgiveness, the non-appropriated disbursements of funds to health insurance companies, et cetera all the way down the line.
Frankly, this dovetails pretty nicely with all the stuff about Chevron, too. Like, not the actual issue in Chevron about how deference should work, but there are tons of administrative state hypos, where I can't imagine the people who are pro-Chevron are going to accept the possibility of criminal prosecution. If the head of an agency approves an action that is later determined by the courts to be unconstitutional or not supported by statute (which was even possible under Chevron if the statute wasn't ambiguous or the agency interpretation was far out enough), are all those folks going to be clamoring for them to be subject to criminal penalties? Say, the head of OSHA can be criminally prosecuted for the COVID vaccine mandate? Examples are plentiful, almost certainly at every agency in existence.
The result would be that all government actors would have to be extremely hyper-cautious about everything they do, more extremely than most people can probably even imagine. Like you say, a few Libertarians would be cool with making them have to be extremely hyper-cautious (because it gets closer to a world where they do literally nothing), but almost no one else is. Even judges have absolute immunity for their official acts, for much the same reason. There was basically zero chance going into this case that the Court was going to find that the President has zero immunity whatsoever for absolutely all official acts; the only real questions were how much immunity (absolute, qualified, some other construct?) and where the lines were drawn. Official v. nonofficial was one obvious place to draw at least one line, and the three-part division they settled on is perhaps not perfect, but it's at least in the right ballpark. It's definitely approximately along the lines of what I was expecting going in.
I don't think you can retroactively prosecute anyone for something that wasn't a crime at the time they committed it, right? I can't pass a law today making posting on The Motte illegal and then charge you for posting yesterday.
Also, in this decision reversing Chevron, don't they explicitly say something like "This doesn't make all previous decisions that relied on Chevron reversible." At least there should be some general protection against these kinds of cascades of retroactive illegality.
Further, I would add that I don't think anyone could argue that -- generally -- an admin agency acting under Chevron was committing crimes by interpreting the laws as directed; rather they were operating under an error and without malice.
Many many agency actions are found to simply be not legal under existing law. You'll always have a variety of background laws that can easily be appealed to as the existing statute saying that it's illegal. @benmmurphy gave the example of false imprisonment. Could use things like misappropriation of government funds, etc. There are tons of existing examples, on the books right now, that could be used.
Right, but this is getting into the weeds of Chevron and is really beside the point. I'd say it's basically just not relevant.
Many many times, being in error or not having malice is not a defense. But you know what you're really doing here? You're reinventing qualified immunity. Kinda funny, really. Like I said, there was always going to be some form of immunity; the question was always where the bounds were on that immunity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Great point there.
People who have recently come to support Chevron deference should be happy with a precedent that holds that Executive Branch actors are generally safe from prosecution for actions they take in their official capacity, even if found to be illegal/unconstitutional later.
If the Court had done the 'opposite,' that is, left Chevron in place but decided that immunity just wasn't a thing for the President and his appointees, then the new front that would potentially open up would be states seeking to sue and arrest, personally, the heads of various agencies for actions taken against their citizens. Okay, that could run afoul of the Supremacy Clause in most cases, but once those people leave office then they would have to be consistently concerned that they'd be brought in to answer for some order they gave during their tenure.
Hell, there's no reason why DOJ couldn't prosecute the officials for taking ultra vires action under color of federal authority itself, without relying on the states at all. Seems like a great way for a new president to get around civil service protections and clean house.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link