site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29967 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 2024

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don’t think the case addresses this and there are arguments that impeachment and conviction could remove the immunity (my theory is that would mean the conduct was ultra vires and therefore not entitled to immunity).

But impeachment isn’t a ruling on authority. It’s a political process for throwing someone out of office. You’d need an article of impeachment which explicitly made it ultra vires; that definitely hasn’t been a feature of previous impeachments.

What statement by Congress could rule that the President’s SotU wasn’t really discharging his Constitutional obligation?

The point is that congress needs to find that there was a high crime or misdemeanor. If the president was exercising his core constitutional powers, the only way it would make sense to me is if the end was ultra vires.

Impeachment is a political question, not a legal question. That is why it's handled by congress. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Congress is so sole authority that decides questions of impeachment. No judge can overrule them.

So what part of a rebellious SotU would be ultra vires? II.3 is quite vague.

There are lots of ways to abuse the lawfully granted powers of an office. Nepotistic or corrupt appointments—protected by II.2. Trading state secrets? As long as he does it on an official phone call, it’s protected. Collaborating with an invading army? He’s commander-in-chief, don’t tell him how to do his job.

All of these things would be crimes by anyone else. Some of them would be outright treason, which is one of the unambiguous criteria for removal. But under this ruling, the man with the most power to commit such crimes can’t face normal consequences. He can only lose his office.

Isn’t that excessive?

Nepotistic or corrupt appointments—protected by II.2.

The protection against nepotistic appointments is consent of the Senate, as RFK could tell you. That's not new. Accepting money or favors in exchange for appointment could be illegal, although the strictures this decision puts on evidence would make prosecution difficult.

Trading state secrets? As long as he does it on an official phone call, it’s protected.

The President's position as classification authority makes this already true for all but some technical nuclear secrets.

Collaborating with an invading army? He’s commander-in-chief, don’t tell him how to do his job.

Congress can "tell him how to do his job", but only through impeachment, not by accusing him of a crime. Dealing with the enemy in wartime is certainly a responsibility of the head of state.

Justice Sotomayor, at least, thinks the majority opinion precludes this

Inherent in Trump’s Impeachment Judgment Clause argument is the idea that a former President who was impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate for crimes involving his official acts could then be prosecuted in court for those acts. See Brief for Petitioner 22 (“The Founders thus adopted a carefully balanced approach that permits the criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts, but only if that President is first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate”). By extinguishing that path to overcoming immunity, however nonsensical it might be, the majority arrives at an official acts immunity even more expansive than the one Trump argued for. On the majority’s view (but not Trump’s), a former President whose abuse of power was so egregious and so offensive even to members of his own party that he was impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate still would be entitled to “at least presumptive” criminal immunity for those acts.

I believe she is correct, though the "presumptive" immunity likely would not be a problem, since in a case where the President was successfully impeached and convicted, the presumption could likely be overcome. The absolute immunity would be a problem.

Sotomayor gets many things wrong including in this opinion so I think that is strong evidence for my position!

Sotomayor is far from the best legal mind, but she's not a reverse weather vane.

It was a joke to be clear. But it reminds me of Roberts’ line in the Harvard case which was something like “the dissent is not a good place to find legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.”

Damn, that’s a pretty good one.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats