site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   35690 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Minnesota Legitimacy Crisis

A legitimacy crisis can occur when two different groups interpret laws in different ways. This is bad because you wind up with two sets of people in the same jurisdiction, each abiding by different laws, living in parallel legal realities, and whether they are caught violating the law or not depends on which member of the group is enforcing it at the time.

In predominately Blue Minnesota, the state legislature found itself in a tie between Republicans and the DFL (what Democrats call themselves over there.) This made Democrats pretty worried, because it meant they would need to work with Republicans this session.

Then disaster struck - one of the DFL candidates who won their House seat, Curtis Johnson, was not qualified to serve in the legislature, because he did not live in District 40B as the state constitution requires. This leaves the seat vacant until a special election can be held. This gave the Republicans an advantage over the Democrats, something the DFL could not tolerate.

So the Democrats refused to show up to the legislature when they were legally required to do so. They were sworn in in secret, and didn't show up. On the first day of the legislative session, the Democratic Lt. Governor showed up, called the House to order, and then said, "You don't have quorum, so you can't do anything, I adjourn the House."

To have quorum, you need a majority of the House's members. Democrats are saying that there are 134 House Seats, half of 134 is 68, therefore the Republicans do not have quorum and cannot do anything.

However, because Curtis Johnson’s seat has been declared vacant by the MN Supreme Court, there are not 134 House members. There are 133. A majority is therefore 67 members—which is exactly what the House GOP has.

Where it gets weird is there are two competing norms written in two different books. Mason's Manual (which governs the Minnesota Legislature’s operations) says:

The total membership of a body is to be taken as the basis for computing a quorum, but, when there is a vacancy, unless a special provision is applicable, a quorum will consist of the majority of the members remaining qualified.

Cushing’s Law Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 9th Edition (1874), which Mason's Manual cites, says:

When the number, of which an assembly may consist, at any given time, is fixed by constitution, and an aliquot proportion of such assembly is required in order to constitute a quorum, the number of which such assembly may consist and not the number of which it does in fact consist, at the time in question, is the number of the assembly, and the number necessary to constitute a quorum is to be reckoned accordingly.

Which can be interpreted as that the number of seats determines quorum, BUT Minnesota does not have the number of seats fixed by constitution. So it does not appear that this rule applies. Conveniently, when Democrats cite the rule, they leave out the first part of the quote that references the constitution.

This is a good write up if you want to read all the details: https://decivitate.substack.com/p/legitimacy-crisis-in-my-minnesota. Or if you prefer something written by an actual expert, and not an internet hobbyist, this brief provides a good (if biased for GOP) summary: https://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/document.do?document=be8019a34d345648b6cf0337f337a772f1da69c972cc5609aef2144e14f85fc1

Meanwhile, the GOP has elected the first Black Speaker of the Minnesota House and is trying to get things done. The DFL is trying to stop them from getting things done by avoiding work and by sending people to harass the GOP in the legislature.

Oral Arguments are going in front of the Minnesota Supreme court today, at 1 PM local. The Supreme Court is 7-0 Democrats’ appointees. I think the GOP's argument has a stronger legal basis, but that does not mean that the DFL will lose the case. What happens then?

One problem is that courts have a limit with their jurisdiction over other branches of government. We saw that with the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity. Can the legislature keep saying, "No, you do not have say over legislative proceedings, we are going to keep doing what we are doing?" The Minnesota Constitution states clearly, "Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings."

So you can wind up in a situation where the GOP legislature passes a law saying that it is illegal to wear red T-shirts on a Sunday, a GOP cop arrests someone for this new crime, and whether or not you end up in prison depends on if the judge is GOP or DFL. People in Minnesota have a real risk at the moment of living in a land where two sets of laws are enforced by two sets of people.

Of all things, I think this is the greatest risk to our country. Not worried about Minnesota specifically (sorry to whomever lives there, please escape at your earliest convenience.) But something similar can happen on the Federal level, might very well happen with Trump trying to shred norms as best he is able. And if that happens... it could spell the end of the Republic (or at the least a Civil War until we can force States to sign an amendment that corrects whatever crisis arose.)

I could think of a number of ways to navigate through this using the rules cited.

But I think ULTIMATELY the Courts will, if they're being fair-minded, say "toss this back to the people. They can hold a recall vote or they can pursue a referendum or they can otherwise exercise their rights and authority to goad their legislators to act if they so wish. If the people are okay with the status quo, they can let it stand." Otherwise, the Courts risk overriding the 'will of the people' either way they rule.

Then someone in one of the Dem house members' districts starts gathering signatures for a recall, and force the issue.

If Minnesota looks to remain gridlocked for years to come, then unhappy constituents can move somewhere else if it matters that much to them.

A quorum bust in a blue state. My oh my. Here in red Texas we just elected a house speaker with more democrat votes than republicans.

But I have to wonder- in practice, a 50%+1 majority usually means you need to work with the opposing party at least a little bit anyways. What do democrats think they’re avoiding?

Texas politics is insane. Dems have realized they can have a friendly speaker by getting a small number if republicans to defect.

It’s more like 40% than a small number.

Why did 40% defect?

Because the Texas GOP is one of the most far right state Republican parties and the defectors are mostly establishment types uncomfortable with the possibility of, say, re-criminalizing sodomy, invading Mexico, or holding a secession vote. The furthest right caucus which actually literally unironically wants to do those things has enough votes to accomplish at least some of their priorities when in a coalition and Dustin Burrows is, yes a squishy establishment type, but not really a centrist.

But I have to wonder- in practice, a 50%+1 majority usually means you need to work with the opposing party at least a little bit anyways. What do democrats think they’re avoiding?

There was an elaborate power-sharing agreement put in place after the election resulted in a tie, with leadership positions held jointly by members of both parties. These leadership positions are set at the beginning of the session and remain in place for the entire session. Importantly, these positions control the agenda of the house and its committees, so the power sharing agreement effectively ensured that neither party could push out the other's agenda. That tie was disrupted by the disqualification of a DFL member, giving the GOP a temporary majority until a special election is held. The GOP is trying to take advantage of that temporary majority to appoint its members to all the leadership positions before the special election (likely) restores the tie. The DFL tried to fast-track that special election, but the courts denied it. Now they are trying to stall until the election can be held and the tie restored so the power sharing agreement would also get restored.

I expect the short-term is just that the DFL wanted to use the state (and its funds) for Trump Resistance, and expect that 'legitimizing' the state House will get in the way of that. There's a ticking time bomb here -- MN uses biannual budget bills, they start in the July of every odd-numbered year, they're usually /passed/ by mid-May, and in practice this means that the DFL have a lot of leverage near something they really want (with all the fulcrum connotations that proximity means).

That said, Minnesota's politics are unusually fucked. This is from 2022, but it gives you a better idea of exactly how polarized a lot of state is -- and if anything, understates it, since several of the 'closer' red counties are close because of the faults in a politician, rather than much love for blue tribe positions.

In practice, Walz is still governor and will be for years, but certain antics mean that Red politicians are going to play things a lot more aggressively themselves.

That's the mysterious part of it to me - there is no long term win here. Are they going to stay away from the legislature for a whole year until they get a simple majority? I don't know if they have a long-term strategy.

Isn't this why you have Supreme Courts?

Can't someone file a lawsuit and get it expressly resolved by the final authority on such procedural issues to avoid an institutional crisis?

There is a lawsuit, oral arguments are today, but like I said at the end:

One problem is that courts have a limit with their jurisdiction over other branches of government. We saw that with the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity. Can the legislature keep saying, "No, you do not have say over legislative proceedings, we are going to keep doing what we are doing?" The Minnesota Constitution states clearly, "Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings."

There is a strong possibility (>50%) that the courts just say they can't rule on this as it is a political question. So they do not decide it at all, and the Legislature has to decide whether or not the Legislature can decide anything.

Probably a naive question, but does the MN supreme court have any precedent cases where they punted on a "political" issue? This seems pretty clear-cut to me in favor of the GOP, and the rules-lawyering by the DFL seems to me as exactly the sort of behavior you should throw the book at, under the "win stupid prizes" principle.

Yeah. "If you refuse to show up everyone else just votes without you" seems like a way better principle than "if you refuse to show up you deadlock the system", conditional on the not showing up being voluntary rather than some scheme where a surprise meeting was called.

Most recently, during the oral arguments for taking Trump off the Minnesota ballot, the Minnesota Supreme Court spent the majority of oral argument time considering if they had jurisdiction as it was a political question. But it was all kind of made moot by the SCOTUS ruling.

I'm not familiar enough with Minnesota law to know specific cases where this happened. The brief I linked to had this argument, but I don't know how to access the cases it discusses:

As noted, our Constitution’s Article III provides for the separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and prescribes that “[n]o person or per- sons belonging to or constituting one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others.” As this Court has explained, “[t]he three distinct departments thus created are of equal dignity, and, within their respective spheres of action, equally independent.” State v. Dist. Ct. in and for Ramsey Cnty., 194 N.W. 630, 632 (Minn. 1923). This is no small matter. “The division of powers is the fundamental principle upon which American constitu- tional government is based, and the success of our form of government depends, in large measure, upon the respect paid to that principle by each of the three divi- sions in its relations with the others.” Smith v. Holm, 19 N.W.2d 914, 915 (Minn. 1945).

This separation of powers, of course, protects each of the judicial and legis- lative branches from the other’s intrusion on its internal affairs. For instance, when the Legislature recently tried to instruct the courts by statute to open their Minne- sota Government Access records system to all attorneys, this Court directed that the matter was within judicial, not legislative, competence. Order re Minn. Stat. 484.94 (2023) and the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Minnesota Judicial Branch, No. ADM10-8050 (Minn. June 28, 2023). Similarly, this Court holds that “the Leg- islature’s ability to discipline judges is limited to the impeachment process.” E.g., State v. Irby, 848 N.W.2d 515, 521 (Minn. 2014). And more broadly, separation-of- powers principles surely limit legislative interference with the judiciary’s internal organization. For instance, if the Legislature disagreed with this Court about the constitutionality of the Court’s appointment of a referee in a case before it, and enacted a statute purporting to remove the referee, we have no doubt that the Court would find serious separation-of-powers problems.

By the same token, it is long settled Minnesota law that “[t]he judicial branch may not, therefore, directly or indirectly interfere with th[e] legislative power in any other way than by passing upon the constitutionality … of [the] laws.” Holm, 19 N.W.2d at 916. In other words, “[t]he courts have no judicial control over … matters which the people have by the Constitution delegated to the Legislature,” In re McConaughy, 119 N.W. 408, 415 (Minn. 1909), and must be “wary of unneces- sary judicial interference in the political process.” Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton, 903 N.W.2d 609, 625 (Minn. 2017)

You'd think that courts are setup just to resolve this sort of vague procedural issue. But I guess when it comes to parliament procedure it may be a violation of the separation of powers.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats