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 -
Aside from Roe, can you name another? I believe there are two members of the Supreme Court (Thomas and Barrett) who might seriously consider overturning Brandenburg, but that's it.
Lemon v. Kurtzman overturned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education overturned by Janus v. AFSCME.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke overturned by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
Not necessarily from the same era, but NYSRPA v. Bruen basically overturned every 2nd amendment case in history besides Heller
Wikipedia claims that; the opinion of the court claims Lemon had already been effectively set aside.
SFFA overturned neither Bakke (which was a mess of a set of opinions, and in fact the ruling was in favor of Bakke) nor even the later Grutter which endorsed Powell's opinion in Bakke. The ruling was that Harvard and UNCs programs were impermissible under Grutter.
I only wish it overturned US v. Miller.
Yeah, by previous Roberts court opinions like American Legion v. American Humanist Association
If your take is, "actually affirmative action has been illegal the whole time," I guess you might be right, but that's kind of missing the point.
It did. The two opinions are fundamentally irreconcilable. Nobody knows how much of the NFA is constitutional at the moment.
American Humanist also claims Lemon had already been set aside.
My point is that the lower courts had effectively overruled the Supreme Court by turning a blind eye to blatant violations of the restrictions on affirmative action programs set out by Grutter, and SFFA was therefore not changing precedent by re-affirming those restrictions.
Enough of Bruen will be carved out to allow all of the NFA to stand. Except on abortion, that's how the Roberts court works; make apparently major decisions which change nothing.
Granting cert in US v Rahimi looks all downside on that front especially given the facts of the case and the plaintiff. And that's not even getting close to the NFA section of 18 USC 922.
Yeah, the law in Rahimi is a real stinker, abrogating rights because of restraining orders which are handed out like candy. But they wouldn't have taken that plaintiff if they weren't intending to uphold the law.
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
You just had 6 SCOTUS justices put forth a very strong view of first amendment protections (including ACB and Thomas). I don’t know if they specifically cite Brandenburg but what makes anyone think they want to revisit first amendment caselaw? If anything, they seem keen to extend it.
Now if they actually were to reinstate Lochner my joy would be complete.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link