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 -
Trump v. United States, the presidential immunity opinion, dropped this morning. In broad strokes it goes like this:
1. For those acts that are pursuant to the President's "conclusive and preclusive" authority there is absolute immunity.
2. For those acts which are official acts by the President but not covered by (1) there is a presumption of immunity that can only be overcome by showing the prosecution would pose no "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."
3. For those acts which are unofficial there is no immunity.
4. Those acts for which the President has immunity cannot be used as evidence to demonstrate any element of a crime for which the President would not have immunity.
I think it's just incredible that the six justices in the majority looked at the Navy-SEALs-assassinate-a-rival hypothetical and went "yep, sounds right, no liability." Roberts' majority opinion even mentions the President's orders to the armed forces as one of the things that falls under (1).
I think the way is clear. Biden orders Trump, the six justices in the majority, and let's say the next 2-3 top Republican candidates whacked (just for safety). He probably gets impeached and removed but can't go to jail (thanks SCOTUS!) Harris takes over as President and I think it's unlikely she would also get impeached. Dems don't want to hand the presidency to Mike Johnson. That gives Harris plenty of time to stack the court. Republican convention in disarray due to the deaths of their prominent candidates. Biden obviously out, he'd be ineligible anyway if impeached and removed. Dems probably dump Harris to create a clean break with Biden admin, clearing the way for Whitmer/Newsom/Pritzker/whoever.
The above is fan fiction, of course.
This is the same Court that has been consistently expanding protections for firearm ownership pursuant to the Second Amendment so I expect liberals will, any day now, start finding a strange new appreciation for civilian ownership of 'weapons of war' if the President is free to kill U.S. citizens at will.
More seriously the consequences of not having immunity for 'official acts' would be arguably worse, with any given law enforcement agency that can claim proper jurisdiction able to show up to the White House with a warrant and seek to put the President in custody and/or search for evidence of criminal activity. Obvious failure mode there if we want him to be effective at his job (I, myself, wouldn't mind it! But as a practical matter who would agree to be President under these conditions?).
The line "When the President Does it, that means that it is not illegal" really does mean just that. If the laws carve out an exception for this particular person, then we can say in complete isolation from how immoral, illogical, and ill-advised an action may be, it is not illegal and thus remedies generally lie outside the legal process.
The Court has done nothing except re-allow bump stocks. All its other firearm cases were dead on arrival, except Rahimi which was their burial.
Bruen was only 2 years ago and is already having initial ripple effects at the state level.
The "ripple effects" are that they're making carry permits that don't allow you to carry -- or at the very least turning the state into a minefield where if you're carrying with a permit you risk walking right into a felony at any time.
And striking down rules against pistol braces.
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/06/13/federal-judge-vacates-atf-rule-on-pistol-braces-n1225260
And bans on under-21's owning guns.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-strikes-down-federal-law-barring-handgun-sales-those-under-21-2023-05-12/
and at the county level, striking down magazine capacity bans.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/state-politics/washington-high-capacity-magazine-ban-unconstitutional-cowlitz-county-judge/281-a6f257e4-8e37-47fe-971b-e775728b1e55
This is what I mean by 'ripple effects.' There is actual traction for going after restrictions on firearms use and ownership, with a new standard applied which is more favorable towards challenges, although it all needs to shake out over time.
I guess we'll see how the 'Spirit of Aloha' holds up in court, too.
If you don't see this as an 'expansion' of gun rights okay, but I'm not sure how you characterize it as making it more likely that people will catch a felony for owning or carrying a gun.
This will likely hold up because it's not on Second Amendment grounds.
Likely will be overturned by the Fourth Circuit, and the Supreme Court will not take up the case.
Likely will be overturned by the Ninth Circuit, and cert will be denied. A similar magazine ban keeps getting upheld in the Third Circuit.
In New York and New Jersey and California, if you could get a carry permit (which you probably couldn't), you could carry a gun in most places. Now, while theoretically you can get a permit, there's a long list of places and circumstances you can't carry anyway; educational facilities, health care facilities, any public building, various private buildings, Times Square, public transportation, private passenger transit, etc.
When I can walk into a New Jersey gun store, buy a modern rifle and pistol, load them, strap the pistol on my waist and the rifle on a sling, and head to my office in New York City without taking extreme care as to the route, using either public or private transportation to get there, without breaking laws that have not been overturned, THEN I will believe there's protections for firearm ownership and carry. Right now I can't lawfully buy the guns, if I could lawfully buy the guns they'd be restricted as to magazine capacity and by other features, I cannot lawfully carry the guns in NJ, I cannot lawfully carry the guns in NY, I cannot lawfully carry the guns on public transportation, and even if I could obtain a carry permit in both state (I cannot) I would still not be able to lawfully carry on public transportation and would have to take extreme care to avoid prohibited areas in NJ; I could not avoid prohibited areas in NYC.
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
More options
Context Copy link