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 -
It's not clear that the Robed Nine would win in a direct contest of wills with the federal government. If Harris says, we aren't going to listen to any decisions made by an improperly constituted Court, and will ignore them, then what happens? What seems most likely to me there is that Judicial Review is removed from American government going forward, the death of the SCOTUS, with original jurisdiction cases remaining a marginal lacuna to be dealt with in time. Is the alternative a gamble on violent outcomes, or governmental breakdown? I have trouble picturing John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh signing up for that, though governments have broken over less.
The fun possibility: we might get a SCOTUS Avignon papacy, with two SCOTUSes sitting separately ruling each other illegal, with neither side being determined enough to take violent kinetic action, but simply ignoring each other for decades, with the result being legal chaos until we get a reunification of the belts (presumably) when Republicans win enough elections to claim a majority on the 18-year court or Democrats win enough and Republican justices die enough to get a majority on the lifetime court, at which point the conflict will conclude.
ETA: Thinking about it more, it seems like the decisive vote would shift over time in the current nine. It requires six to sit. Assuming simplistically that the Ds are pro-term limits and the Rs are against, the third term limit appointee would give the term limit court a quorum once the OG Ds show up as well. You could have a situation where first the OG SCOTUS excludes the term limit appointees, and then once the majority shifts the term limit SCOTUS convenes and the remaining OG justices can choose to caucus with them or not.
This is all starting to remind me of the periods in Ottoman history when independent rulers in North Africa paid nominal allegiance but were not under any concrete control.
Note that it recently more-or-less happened in Poland.
More options
Context Copy link
Nor is it clear they wouldn't.
Roberts and Kavanaugh wouldn't. Thomas might, he's getting cranky in his old age. But I was more thinking that if the Republicans managed to put it off a few terms and got a few more firebrand justices on the court. And/or provoked the Democrats into being more openly anti-Court. A slim Democratic majority trying to strip the court of independence could get pushback under those circumstances.
I'm thinking about it more, Republicans should compliance jurisdiction. Give the senior justices more options to hear cases, say cases about constitutional rights, or to vote on cases when it's 5-4. That would at the very least preserve the R majority until 2030, and might turn the whole project into an argument.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m rooting for an Avignon court, but a true Avignon court. One where the people gather to demand a solution, but just break into the court’s wine cellar instead and we wind up with the states choosing one of 3 courts to follow.
I mean if you at that level of escalation a car bomb seems a bit more elegant doesn't it?
I want history to rhyme better, the third compromise option nobody wanted needs to be imposed by an angry mob drunk on the court’s own wine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link