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 -
See below — if the court is a check on the executive the president being able to alter 2/9 of the court in one term and 4/9 in two terms really lessens the check and balance of the court.
That's somewhat fair. Do note of course that the Senate is still involved and has to sign off, so it's still involving all 3 branches, not just one. I think the proposal needs a little more detail or clarification about the expected role of the Senate.
Additionally, the fact that justices can't be removed (assuming #3 about ethics either doesn't pass or doesn't go too crazy partisan, and which needs WAY more work IMO to be worth considering) is still a big balance. 18 years is still mostly a lifetime appointment, and justices still care about the legacy of the court and their own reputation and such. Worrying about selection bias is still a totally valid concern though.
All of this misses the point though. We already see justices nominated and confirmed in roughly 18 year cycles! All this proposal does is standardize and make these changes more regular!! So basically the proposal can only make things better, not worse.
I could see however a variant of #3 being included either on its own or along with #2 (or implemented by tradition), where justices abstain by default from cases involving the sitting president who nominated them being a good compromise? That means a justice can't bail out their benefactor right away. That would come with its own downsides of course (e.g. a 5 justice court 7 years in to a two-term president). So I don't think it would work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link