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 am not sure about Barrett, but Jackson has sided with conservatives on reading criminal statues narrowly in a few cases. I am not saying she is conservative by any means, but she does have a very specific jurisprudence that can lean what has been described as libertarian on criminal matters. Now she was a public defender, so it maybe her experiences there with perhaps the over-reach of the prosecutorial state have aligned her somewhat that way. She is also very concerned with the practicalities of rulings. As in, how easy is it for an average person to know what they should or should not be doing with any given statute or law. She thinks the courts should be doing more to clarify and help citizens there.
Obviously you are not likely to agree with a lot of her opinions, but I think she is a far better justice than she has been painted, even with that expectation.
To the extent that "Woke" is downstream of stuff like BLM, this would appear to be a case-in-point of my read on her decisions. A consistent libertarianism (e.g. on Murthy, where the Democrat appointees sided with Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh to empower the federal government against the First Amendment) would have shown some sophistication. Someone who is libertarian when it protects petty criminals from local LEOs but statist when the federal government wants to bully corporations into doing things the federal government is forbidden from doing, does not have a sophisticated jurisprudence. They have a results-oriented political agenda.
And I do think that Murthy shook out in approximately that way, split between plausibly principled jurists and mere creatures of the state. Barrett is the one I have the hardest time pinning down, it seems I am as often disappointed by her as I am impressed. They all get it right sometimes, and they all get it wrong sometimes, and that's to be expected. But the "freedom contingent" is small, and gains allies only inconsistently.
Then she should have sided against J6 surely? That was a Federal case.
In any case, i think you are quite right in one respect, she is results orientated. Which is something I think is needed on the court. The courts are made for men, not men for the courts in other words. Very technical rulings in order to make the smallest possible change to a statute without providing any guidance to how that impacts the statute over all, are very common currently as are punting things back to lower courts on narrow grounds. Whether that is Roberts just not wanting to rock the boat too hard or just being slightly too beholden to previous decisions. I see Jackson and Thomas as being antidotes to that, though in clearly different directions.
I'd rather have a decision go against my political side as long as it results in clear ideas of what can or can't be done, than some wishy-washy dismissal on providence grounds. That is one of the reasons I like Jackson, she consistently pushes for them to make actual real decisions, even when it is likely (as in the Idaho case) that her preferred outcome would not be the one a conservative leaning court would actually make, if it was willing to make a decision. Notably Thomas also does this as well. Which is why even though I disagree with a lot his decisions, I think he adds a good balance to the court.
It was still "local LEOs" on the ground, though. DC's unique character makes it a special case.
The extent to which we agree or disagree on this probably depends on what you ultimately mean by "real decisions" and "results oriented." In legal theory, "results oriented" is a term of art specifically connoting "uses the law to achieve particular outcomes (whether in the particular case or in more general sociocultural ways), rather than pursuing a consistent jurisprudence grounded in clear principles." So for example, Roe v. Wade was a badly-decided case (even RBG thought so), but the clear outcome was so desired by certain people that they enshrined it in their jurisprudence anyway. Was that better than a wishy-washy dismissal? Maybe, but I'm skeptical, and "wishy-washy dismissal" is of course not the only alternative.
The problem with a results oriented jurisprudence is that a clear answer to this question may actually muddy the waters on many other questions. That's the point of principle: if I know how the Court has ruled in relevant principle, I can get a sense of how the Court is likely to rule on similar and related questions that are not answered by the case under immediate consideration. And one of the most important principles of American governance is the doctrine of enumerated powers, which has not been carefully adhered to since, well, maybe ever... but the accrual of power to the federal government certainly accelerated through the 20th century in a trend that seems to be continuing into the 21st.
Exactly, if it wasn't carefully adhered to, from very early on, there is no reason it should be now. All of that is just a framework for decisions that benefit the people. If your rules don't work and have to be ignored, then the rules are no good and should be ignored.
Now that does allow for decisions to be made in partisan ways, and that is another problem I completely agree. But the rules didn't stop that happening anyway. So you are no worse off. But having actual enumerated decisions at least let people know what the ground under their feet is doing now. Sure maybe that changes on the next case, but that is ok. Knowing what the next step looks like is enough for 90% of people.
Personally I'd prevent the Supreme court from punting or making very minor narrow decisions. If a law is unconstitutional then they force the government to rewrite it until it is. Give them some powers to enforce that on the executive and legislative branches. Give them some actual teeth to really be a check and balance. Their job is to determine that and punting it back and forth helps no-one except prolonging things. Even if that means my side would lose a lot of cases given the ideological make up of the court, I would far prefer that.
This is straightforwardly fallacious. There are many reasons why it should be adhered to now, but even if there were not, "no one has ever does this so there is no reason to do this" is clearly bad reasoning.
No-one has ever done this, because it demonstrates it could not be done even when people really wanted to do it is the point. Like communism may be just fine if it weren't being attempted by humans. But sadly it is.
If it couldn't be done from the start (which was your point), then why would you ever think it could be now? It may be bad reasoning, but it is real world reasoning. Philosophically and logically perhaps you are correct. But in practice I think I am.
I did say maybe ever, and I was being perhaps a touch hyperbolic. This is... complicated... but I think that the aspiration toward enumerated powers is often almost as important as actually achieving it. I do think there have been efforts in that direction, many times throughout our nation's history. I think they have in general been for the best. I also think that opposition to that principle has also been present from the start, and that said opposition has generally operated for the worse.
It's a process, in other words. Attempts to adhere to principle allow that process to continue. Circumventing that process by abandoning principle entirely, not so much. There are many, many things in the world that I suspect genuinely work in this way, that is, aspirationally. But I've not found a really good way of communicating that even in a book-length work, much less a forum post. Sorry.
No need to be sorry! And for what it is worth, I do think aspirations are important. Just because I don't think it can work completely or perfectly, doesn't mean that I think the idea has no value. Indeed American aspirationalism, is one of the things I most admire about this nation.
I'd just think the people making the choices probably need to be aware the aspirationalism is important, but also not strictly achievable. Which is in and of itself not straightforward. In a distributed way society needs people who truly believe in the aspirations AND pragmatists who work as if those aspirations are not true. Too much belief in the aspirations tends to create too much trust in the institutions those aspirations create, which can (and often is) exploited from within those institutions, and too little gives you nowhere to go, no overall goal. Individuals I think tend to be bad at holding both of those views at once. Whereas a successful society can be the outcome of both groups. Where influence may wax and wane over time between each side.
And I don't think that is necessarily entirely along left/right lines. Though that can shift over time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link