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 -
There is an amendment currently proposed, as follows.
This is very bad, stripping all immunity, not merely limiting it. This would allow Congress, for example, to make vetos illegal. The court raised the example in the immunity decision that one of the charges against Trump could arguably be applied to any example of deliberate underenforcement of the law, which there tends to be some form of under every administration (e.g. immigration). In effect, it will be impossible to legally carry out the office of the presidency, and presidents will be free to bear grudges against their predecessors. Further, this includes immunity in the exclusive and preclusive powers, which even the liberal justices conceded would make sense—now Congress can set rules on when they can be vetoed? This dramatically harms the separation of powers. (Roberts notes also that no immunity would incentivize clinging to power.)
I'll note also that while the immunity ruling went too far in places (the evidence portion?), it left a lot of space, from the extreme of absolute immunity for all official conduct (which, evidently, one justice, at least, wanted) to Barrett's reading of it, which seemed always to take the most limited stance the opinion allows. It had to be written in such a way to satisfy all the people signing onto it. You can bet that if this case returns to the court after lower courts decide that Trump is not immune on the remaining questions (fake slates of electors, speeches, pressuring Pence), you will have at least four justices siding against Trump, with a pretty good chance of Roberts or Kavanaugh siding with them. That is, this is not indicative of a general principle that they're going to side with Trump.
I think it's worth taking seriously Roberts' own statement that this was intending to set forth generic principles, not ruling separately for Trump.
I don't know that I quite follow what you are saying. You seem to be saying that the courts are treating the presidency too deferentially, and so he needs to have immunity stripped. But do you have any indication of deferentiality besides the recognition of immunity (I think I've indicated why that can't be generalized)? Then your position seems closer to being that any form of immunity grants the president too much power. That is, your position on immunity, at least insofar as you articulated it here, does not seem contingent on how the courts treat him.
My expectation is that we see the immunity consistently read in the narrowest manner, making this not that impactful.
More options
Context Copy link