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 very specifically critiquing the arguments you are presenting here, nothing less and nothing more; I make no claims about your previous behavior or positions; they are entirely irrelevant to me.
I am not claiming that you've never pushed back on left-wing activists or government officials ignoring the courts. I am observing that the material outcome of that pushback was zero accountability in any significant form for the left-wing activists or government officials in question, across a very large number of issues and specific cases. I am entirely willing to accept as much pushback as you and others wish to provide against my side, provided that this pushback is similarly ineffectual. As I said above, frown away.
But your position seems to be that this time is different, and that this time, something must be done. And I and others are asking "why now? What changed"? Why does frowning no longer suffice, such that you expect actual accountability all of a sudden? Why can we not agree that this is "totally unacceptable" in a way where absolutely nothing will be done about it, as is the long-established norm stretching back decades?
I can not control the actions of others, especially not in regards to vague and nonspecific events.
If there is any particular case where a court ruling was flagrantly ignored by a left leaning administration in modern history, then I shall condemn it to.
To clarify though, an admin changing a process or plan in response to the court to no longer fall under what was ruled against would not count as it would be a different plan and this is standard course of politics. For example when Biden's main student loan forgiveness policies were struck down, he used different existing laws that were not yet ruled on. This worked because the SC did not rule on loan forgiveness in general but on the specific method the Biden admin had tried to use.
This is rather normal in politics, and if the Trump administration wishes to proceed with their goals they are free to find all sorts of clever ways to do it so long as they don't defy the judicial branch.
I don't expect you to control the actions of others. I do expect you to recognize that the actions of others exist, and account for the results of those actions in your argument. I disagree that I have referred to "vague and nonspecific events"; I have been referring to broad events, but if greater specificity is needed, say so and we can drill down into the details of specific cases.
In any case, can you at least agree in principle that selective enforcement of the law is a valid concern, and that arguments for rule of law need to account for how selective enforcement will be prevented? Can you further agree that if selective enforcement is abused, those abusing it lose the right to appeal to rule of law as a justification for their actions?
My observation is that "clever ways of accomplishing political goals" are generally the first portion of a Russel Conjugation: "I find clever ways, you bend the rules, he violates the clear standards of the law".
Any appeal to a system of rules relies on the assumption that those rules will be enforced and interpreted fairly, because there is no law that can protect from sufficiently motivated enforcement and interpretation. I don't disagree with you that Trump can try different things. I do disagree that you or the media or the democratic party get to decide which actions are "clever" and which are illegal, and further I disagree that something is required to happen even if we agree that the action is in fact illegal.
I'm just gonna address this part since you fundamentally misunderstand how the legal system works in the US. The judicial branch are not "the Democratic party" or "the media", they are judges selected through a wide variety of processes (depending on the court and jurisdiction). Often they are appointed by a president who has a respect for their work and shares a similar legal philosophy.
Wilkinson for instance, the judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was appointed by Reagan. Trump himself in the first administration appointed three of the current 9 SC judges, Alito was under Bush and Thomas was under Dubya.
The supreme court especially are the ones granted power by the constitution under article III
One of us certainly does.
You misunderstood me. There were two parts to my statement: a rejection of social consensus as binding to questions of law, and a skepticism of whether formal legal authority de facto exists.
You, the media, and the Democratic party represent the social consensus aspect. The actual courts represent the legal aspect. Your assessment of legality does not make something illegal; the courts do that. But even when the courts do that, I question whether that necessarily means anything, since I have seen numerous examples of court decisions being flouted or ignored, and can point to the specific mechanisms by which this process is conducted.
Yes. And what happens if large numbers of people coordinate their power to defying such orders? Does lightning rain from the Heavens to smite them? Does the earth open up to swallow them and their families whole?
Over and over again, you appeal to the words on paper. But the words on paper are nothing until they are interpreted by human minds and implemented by human hands. Human minds and human hands make mistakes, and sometimes are malicious. The words on paper do not and cannot account for this reality, but we must, every minute of every day. There is no substitute for good judgement, but your argument appears to hinge on judgement being unnecessary, because the system works. Well, I disagree. I note that there is an exterior to the system, that significant amounts of work are conducted in this exterior space, and that so long as you confine yourself to the interior alone you will neither understand nor be capable of utilizing the system in question.
And let's roll in the other tail as well:
I have no idea who you are referring to. Certainly this does not match any argument I have advanced at any point in this or any other discussion.
I am happy for people to criticize Trump, or push back on him. You have constructed a strawman in your mind to avoid dealing with the argument offered to you, which is quite simple: You are arguing for rule of law against Trump, and I am pointing out that the principles you claim (correctly!) that Trump is violating have already been violated to the point of uselessness previously. This does not make what Trump is doing legal or correct. It raises the question of why anyone should care about legality or correctness, when those standards have not applied in hundreds of previous cases.
We can and have directly observed this supposed power being nullified by lesser courts and subordinate institutions. The mechanisms to do so are readily identifiable.
"“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”" -Lysander Spooner.
And again, you may assert that I have abandoned "classic American values" to your hearts content. I am much more interested in highlighting the absurdity of your arguments than I am in securing your affirmation.
Of course de facto people in the country can choose to ignore any words written all they want. I will not dispute that. Likewise a system can not be perfect (nor can be expected to be perfect) and I'm sure people do get away with ignoring the courts sometimes.
But that doesn't change the American values and cultural traditions. Hypothetically if a significant portion of the country wishes to violate the constitution instead of working within the framework to change it (a framework we know exists and can be utilized as it's been done so before multiple times) then they are to be frank, un-American and un-patriotic. They are rebels to the system our founding fathers created and the existing laws and process that have served the country for a few centuries. There is no magic beam of God that will prevent such traitors who wish to cast aside the Constitution, but they will be traitors nevertheless.
Correct on all points. What follows?
In the hypothetical, I imagine a civil war follows between the loyalists and the traitors.
I don't predict such an event happening anytime soon, the large large majority of fellow Americans are patriotic enough to respect the constitution. And the current inquiry into contempt of court is at present halted until the appeals court can rule on the merits, which will then begin an official investigation. Trump has largely respected the judicial branch so far, including the SC's current temporary block on AEA deportations so it will remain to be seen for the current contempt inquiry and if the Trump admin chooses to comply in the case they are ruled against there and have exhausted their legal options.
You mention civil war.
I'm a fairly big fan of Lincoln. In the actual civil war, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. That was a very explicit violation of rule of law, and by no means the only one Lincoln committed, and the courts simply let him do as he pleased. How do events like that fit into your conception of the rule of law? How does "Justice Marshal has made his decision, now let him enforce it"? How does "the switch in time that saved Nine"?
Aww, don't just skip to the executive summary. You really ought to show your work.
The traitors refuse to follow the law. They push meritless legal arguments to the hilt, and then when those arguments are struck down, they flip a few clauses around and resubmit, all the while insisting that they're following the law to the letter in perfectly good faith, and the fact that they're still doing the stuff they were told not to do is just a misunderstanding because they weren't really told to not do it. They claim the courts are illegitimate, and threaten retaliation through various legal methods, from impeachment to court packing, against judges who rule against them. Faced with such broad-based opposition, the courts are faced with a choice eroding their own authority by issuing orders they know will not be followed and they cannot enforce, or declining to issue rulings and allowing the defiance de-facto in a hope to preserve their influence long-term.
When attempts are made to enforce the law, the traitors riot on a massive scale, coordinate assistance and support for rioters, run PR for them and cover their legal fees. When rioters murder innocent men, women or children, the traitors support such murders and vociferously attack anyone who resists or attempts to hold the murderers accountable.
The traitors constantly claim that the Loyalists are traitors themselves, and claim that it is the "loyalists" who have abandoned the Constitution. Any mistake or conflict with the law on the Loyalist side, and there will always be some, will be held up as evidence that the Loyalists have abandoned any right to claim rule of law is illegitimate.
The conflict steadily escalates, with political norms and long-standing traditions toppling in a steady cadence. The traitors openly support mob violence against Loyalist targets, and assassination of Loyalist leaders. Failed assassination attempts are publicly mourned. Successful murders are, again, publicly celebrated. Such attempts gather steam and begin popping up more and more frequently.
At some point, the killing begins in earnest.
Any part of that sound unlikely to you?
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
This is an incredibly condescending post that misunderstands the nuanced point about social incentives that's being made by FCfromSSC. In particular, you're responding to a claim that even the Republican-appointed judges are shaped in their judicial philosophy by the social mileu and ideological influence of Democrats in positions of cultural authority, like the mainstream media, by simply restating that they're Republican-appointed. You're not even engaging with his point!
You're making an argument from authority, and FCfromSSC is saying that the authorities themselves are compromised, or driven by social and ideological incentives and beliefs he disagrees with. He's saying the Pope is the antichrist, and you're quoting him from the first council of the Vatican.
That suggests to me that you're not engaging with him in good faith. He knows what you're saying. Your argument, and the constitutional provision you're posting, are within his grasp. He doesn't need a refresher on the constitution any more than a Catholic who doesn't believe in God needs a refresher on ecumenical councils. You're quoting the Bible to an atheist.
You can disagree with his point, and you can even make strong arguments against it, many of which I might disagree with. But to actually answer it substantively, you'll have to look at the belief systems of the actors in question, their overall judicial philosophies, their social environments, their incentives. You'd have to address the point.
If someone truly believes that every conservative justice on the Supreme Court has been compromised simply because they rule for Trump to respect judicial authority, then I'm going to go in the opposite direction and say it is them who is likely compromised. Anyone whose idealogy appears to be based around "Trump can not be criticized or pushed back on, even by fellow conservatives lest they are effectively traitors" is a person who lacks a meaningful idealogy.
Ok but even if we accept that all the conservative justices who have been conservative for longer than Trump has even been a republican for and some longer than many of us have been alive, it is still a truth of the US that the Supreme Court is granted judicial power to "all Cases, in Law and Equity".
Their authority remains enshrined in the Constitution, and if the argument extends so far to claim that their authority is invalid because they are in one man's opinion "compromised", then it seems to simply be more evidence that it is them who has shifted radically away from classic American values.
You don't need to speak for him, I can look at how words and see what he said. " I do disagree that you or the media or the democratic party get to decide which actions are "clever" and which are illegal, and further I disagree that something is required to happen even if we agree that the action is in fact illegal."
Court rulings are de facto not "the media" or the "the Democratic party", they are the judicial branch. And again it does not matter whether or not one man dislikes their decisions, the Supreme Court is granted their authority under the supreme Law of the Land.
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