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 -
Thank you, that's more reasonable.
Barrett concurred with most of the opinion, but yeah, her opinion wasn't controlling. I fully expect though, if it makes it back to the court, that it be construed in a narrow fashion, rather than a broad one. I think they expected it to be considered with all future such cases in view (hence Gorsuch's quote of "a rule for the ages"), and it would equally well protect Biden from prosecution for carrying out the office of the President, but it clearly wasn't taken that way by the public.
I think the idea was that Presidents in general shouldn't be prosecuted just on Trumped up charges (ha, ha) when their political opponents come into power, that would be really bad. Similarly, Congress shouldn't constitutionally be able to take away from the President the things the Constitution commands him to do, like execute the laws, even if it can regulate the manner of doing so to some extent. Because of those two things, it's necessary that the president have some level of immunity from prosecution for some sorts of things related to the carrying out of his Presidential responsibilities. Did this ruling go too far? I'm currently leaning yes, especially with the evidence rule, which was, as far as I can tell, baseless. But no immunity, which seems to be what Jackson, at least, wanted, would also be bad.
My general sense of the conservative justices, which could be totally wrong, is that Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have visions of what the law should ideally be, which are in many cases different from how it's been interpreted for half a century plus, and they want to restore it, and are not afraid to say so. They're also the most partisan. Roberts and Kavanaugh generally lean conservative, but are more pragmatists, and I think they seem to care more about the administrative state than about social issues. They like hedging. And Barrett is just over there trying to faithfully interpret the law—more socially conservative and slightly more of an idealist than Roberts and Kavanaugh, but wants to come to opinions on her own, and so joins the liberals sometimes, and is not a fan of Trump. I think the conservatives view their role as closer to restoring justice and the law of the land than helping a political team (but, of course, they think that a certain political team fits that better). I couldn't tell you the differences between Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson—Jackson's pretty clearly more willing to break with the other liberals than Sotomayor or Kagan are with each other, but I don't see differences in their philosophies all that much.
The court has ruled against Trump in the past, he just hasn't been before the court recently. He lost, for example, Trump v. Vance. Admittedly, the court has gotten more conservative since then.
Barrett I overall respect, which is odd to me considering how she came into office. Jackson is in a similar vein as Sotomayor and Kagan, but she is somewhat more of a process person and informed by her experience as a defense attorney. Earlier I might have agreed with you on Roberts, but based on his actions lately and some leaks I'm beginning to think that he can be ideological as the others, just not as straight Dem/Rep.
I got their intention in Trump v. United States, but A, I think they went too far (the evidence ruling, plus ruling that communications can not be investigated), and B, it was a perfect example of all the judicial activism oft-complained about. No immunity would be the originalist ruling, as the Constitution says nothing to suggest immunity.
I think the argument would be that the vesting clauses imply separation of powers, which must inherently have built in some immunity (though likely not as much as here is attributed).
But they didn't really employ much founding-era evidence to support their position—Sotomayor was much better on that front.
I think Barrett, Gorsuch, and Thomas are the three I respect most.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link