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 would imagine that spending 18 years, on top of having enough of a legal career to merit consideration as a SC justice (they would probably return to older nominations because the lifetime incentive to nominate super young ones would disappear), would be a long enough span of time that by the time you're done on the SC, your career is basically done anyways. So 18 years is too short to worry about a revolving door, at the very least for this particular position (might not extend to senators).
In fact, if you look at historical data the median age range (50-54) already serves an average of 18.6 years. That means a nominee of that age is going to be 68-74 when they're done, which leaves not that much time for corrupt profit. Or even no time at all! Remember, that historical average time served on the bench is usually ended by, uh, literal death or often major illness. And the most common age group is actually 55-59, so the problem would be even less notable.
So basically your worry about selling out is ranges from a minimal worry to a non-issue, according to the data.
What's the point of instituting and codifying an 18 year term limit except to boot out outliers? It makes it seems it's at best a short-term political play to get the most longstanding conservative judge off the bench and refresh an old Democratic judge and is a purely partisan reform.
What's the point of amending the Constitution permanently? Uh, obviously to create permanent change? It's more weird that you consider an amendment to be a short-term strategy. At least when we're talking about the construction of the amendment itself.
In the medium to long term it seems pretty healthy for the system to institute an 18 year thing. As I mentioned in my other comment, the timeframe is already in line with the current average time on the bench (or even a little longer), and furthermore if we go farther back in history, due to shorter lifespans, the Founding Fathers already would have viewed modern bench duration as an aberration. Thus this change is not only a wise move for future systemic stability (for BOTH parties, since long-term most parties still only expect to win only a little more than half the time) but also perfectly in keeping with precedent and, more controversially but probably correctly, the Framers' intent.
While I agree that it's not good for justices to be serving at 100, the reforms would increase politicization compared to the status quo.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link