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 -
Yes disobey the statute (different from law) which is different than “Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” The executive is claiming the statute would be illegal and if SCOTUS agrees then the statute would not be law
What exactly is the difference between a statute and a law? My cursory Google search indicates they are functionally the same thing, but statutes refer specifically to bills passed by Congress. So how is Trump ignoring the Civil Service Reform Act different than Trump deciding any other law can be ignored? Could Trump decide to ignore the Civil Rights Act and issue an Executive Order reinstituting segregation? Would would prevent him, Constitutionally, from literally playing out the Handmaid's Tale? You seem to be saying that nothing passed by Congress has the force of law unless and until the Supreme Court says so.
Arguing that this is different from doing an Andrew Jackson because it's a "statute and not a law" sounds like some SovCit nonsense. (And if the Supreme Court says no, the Civil Service Reform Act is Constitutional, will you then support Trump actually pulling an Andrew Jackson?)
And if the answer to all that is yes, Trump should do whatever he wants, then again, are you okay with a future Democratic President doing the same thing and declaring that "statutes" passed by Congress that he doesn't like can simply be ignored until the Supreme Court rules on them? Will you pinky-swear that there will be zero indignant noises from you in the future when a Democratic president ignores a statute that you think is lawful and legitimate, and then rolls over the Supreme Court when they rule against him?
Let’s say congress passed a statute saying that it was illegal to practice Hinduism.
It is a statute but clearly isn’t law as it facially violates the Constitution.
And if a dem does it, the answer is it depends. If Congress passes a law saying “you can’t spend money to censor” and the Dem president clearly violates the statute and the first amendment to censor then I’d be upset.
But if they do something that has a pretty strong constitutional basis? No I won’t be upset.
Of course it's possible for Congress to pass a law that is unconstitutional, and it's even arguable that some laws have been obviously unconstitutional and would not survive a Supreme Court challenge. But I have never before heard the theory that nothing is an enforceable law until someone challenges it in the Supreme Court, and therefore the President can treat anything passed by Congress as merely their opinion. Will you be okay with Congress impeaching Trump if the Republicans get slaughtered in the mid-terms? Because that is historically what an unfriendly Congress does to a President who decides he can ignore laws- sorry, statutes- he doesn't like.
I'm also pretty skeptical that Trump has a sound basis for believing that a 60-year-old law is unconstitutional simply because it happens to be in the way of what he wants to do. If the Supreme Court decides it's not unconstitutional, what do you think Trump should do?
There are tons of statutes that are ignored and there are of course test cases to in fact test them.
And this again isn’t a trump position in adopting. The unitary executive is an august position.
More options
Context Copy link
The Tenure of Office Law was declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in 1926 in Myers v. United States, 59 years after the law was passed.
the unitary executive theory has been around a long time; if you believe in the unitary executive theory, which Trump has commented on for 8+ years, you necessarily believe the civil service law is unconstitutional
as these
comically trashaggressive District Court national injunctions and restraining orders and Judge behavior make their way up the system, we're getting closer and closer to the SCOTUS holding something like the unitary executive theory as constitutional law which multiple members (Gorsuch and Thomas) have signaled for yearswe've already crossed that bridge and burned it in 2019 and 2021, so if that's the threat we're already passed it and it's part of the world
if Democrats win big in the midterms, they will impeach DJT whether he abides by the unconstitutional Civil Service Reform Act or not
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