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 -
Musk has no authority except what the President gives him, and the President cannot simply say "Everything Elon Musk says is a lawful order."
The President also cannot sack federal employees with tenure like this. For probationary employees it's... debatable whether what they are doing right now will hold up in court. But the civil service reforms that ended the patronage system explicitly prohibit the executive branch from simply firing civil servants at will. Congress can withhold funding and the President can perhaps abolish certain programs, but federal agencies have to follow a prescribed RIF procedure. They can't just arbitrarily fire people without cause like this.
Elon Musk sending an email saying "If you don't reply, you're fired" is absurd to the extreme. And how will that even work? Who is going to be reading the hundreds of thousands of emails federal employees send in reply? Are they going to do this every week?
It is unworkable and makes no sense. There is no way this can withstand any legal scrutiny.
That said, it appears the administration is operating on the principle of "legal is what you can get away with." Many people here seem to like this, so I can only assume those who do are operating on the assumption that Trump and his successors will never lose power again.
We are operating under the assumption that the executive controls the executive and the idea for example that the president cannot send emails to his subordinates or fire them is absurd. Government sector unions should be per se illegal.
You may feel that the idea that the executive cannot arbitrarily fire any civil servant he wants to is absurd, but that is actually the law right now. Likewise, government sector unions are legal. Change the law if you don't like it. Schoolhouse Rock told me that's what Congress is supposed to do, but apparently we don't care about that anymore, so uncharted waters ahoy. My point was that the wheel turns.
Let’s challenge that in the courts. The executive power cannot be vested in the president if he cannot fire people who attempt to block his exercise of the executive power.
There might be statutes but that doesn’t make them law. Maybe you need a refund from schoolhouse rock
So your argument is that the Civil Service Reform Act is unconstitutional, and Trump should simply ignore it and do an Andrew Johnson? I mean, that's a coherent argument, but I'll return to my question about whether you are okay with the next (Democratic) president doing the same thing?
I’m saying they should do a test case. There is a difference.
I genuinely don't understand the difference you are pointing at here. The law is pretty clear, and you are saying Trump should ignore it and see what Supreme Court says?
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?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link