site banner
PaperclipPerfector  18d ago (text post)   32263 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift the order on the executive to "facilitate" the return of Abrego Garcia and I recommend reading it

It's written up by judge James Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee and Bush era short list candidate for the supreme court and he's quite well respected in the legal profession. This guy has been a conservative for longer than many people here have even been alive, and the stance of seasoned judicial figures like him with old style "respectable" political ideologies are an interesting way to see the change in the rest of politics.

Most importantly in that it incidentally addresses many of the questions and concerns people have about this whole situation.

Like does it matter whether or not the executive's allegations against Garcia are correct?

The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove "by a preponderance of evidence" that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or "mistakenly" deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?

What does the Supreme Court's decision actually say?

The Supreme Court's decision remains, as always, our guidepost. That decision rightly requires the lower federal courts to give "due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs" Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Apr. 10, 2025); see also United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936). That would allow sensitive diplomatic negotiations to be removed from public view. It would recognize as well that the "facilitation" of Abrego Garcia's return leaves the Executive Branch with options in the execution to which the courts in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision should extend a genuine deference. That decision struck a balance that does not permit lower courts to leave Article II by the wayside.

The Supreme Court's decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government "to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2. "Facilitate" is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. See Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2 ("[T]he Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."). The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art. We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive. Cf. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024); Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000). Thus, the government's argument that all it must do is "remove any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia's] return," Mot. for Stay at 2, is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court's command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador.

An interesting difference between the role of the executive and the rule of the judiciary

And the differences do not end there. The Executive is inherently focused upon ends; the Judiciary much more so upon means. Ends are bestowed on the Executive by electoral outcomes. Means are entrusted to all of government, but most especially to the Judiciary by the Constitution itself.

Are the claims that this could be used on citizens valid?

The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?" And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive's obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" would lose its meaning. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3; see also id. art. II, § 1, cl. 8.

On the contradictions between both government's public claims of authority and/or responsibility.

Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran governments disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. See President Trump Participates in a Bilateral Meeting with the President of El Salvador, WHITE HOUSE (Apr. 14, 2025). We are told that neither government has the power to act. The result will be to leave matters generally and Abrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.

Are there previous major examples of an executive following a court order it did not like?

It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower's sage example. Putting his "personal opinions" aside, President Eisenhower honored his "inescapable" duty to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools "with all deliberate speed." Address by the President of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957); 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that "[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts." Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive's own words, "[u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result." Id.

And if you're wondering "Why do the courts even get a say here to begin with about the executive's actions?", here's a basic primer.

Exactly what due process do people think was missed? The guy had multiple days in court, and had a standing deportation order, no? If the government managed to bring him back, sticks him before an immigration judge who says "Your asylum claims are no longer valid due to changed facts on the ground, assuming they ever were, it's fine to execute the deportation order to El Salvador", then is everyone who is upset about this going to nod sagaciously and be satisfied that due process was followed? If they get him out of El Salvador and dump him six feet across the border in Honduras, does that fix everything?

How much due process in general needs to be given to each of the 10-30 million illegal immigrants? There was certainly no due processes when they came in; can we hold the entire Biden administration and Democrat party in contempt?

Back to Garcia, what "options" remain after the government of El Salvador has declined to release him? Do the courts expect special forces to exfiltrate a foreign national from a foreign prison?

I'm honestly baffled how people justify this to themselves as anything other than naked "rules for thee but not for me". Does it actually feel, inside, like standing on principle and not just grasping at any procedural trick at hand?

This great man expressed his unflagging belief that "[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts." Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive's own words, "[u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result." Id.

Let whosoever among you has demanded prosecution for Blue State governors who ignore the clear and plain SC rulings on the 2nd Amendment be the first to speak up.

Arguments surrounding the guy's immigration status are irrelevant here. At no point has the administration argued that its obligations would be any different were he an American citizen; it's taken a firm stance that the court has no authority to compel the executive to return someone held by a foreign government. Period. If the court sides with the administration, there's nothing preventing Trump from deciding that it's easier to send a high-profile citizen criminal to El Salvador than to provide the due process the law affords him. And who is going to argue? After all, there was certainly no due process provided to the victims of his crimes. At that point, 200 years of constitutional law will go down the toilet. Every citizen is entitled to due process, unless the government decides he isn't is not the hallmark of a free society.

If the issue under debate is due process, how can his immigration status be "irrelevant"? His immigration status is what determines how much process is due.

His immigration status is what determines how much process is due.

It may do, but even the Trump administration admits that the result of the due process he was entitled to has simply been ignored and now they say it doesn't matter because they have no obligations to someone in a foreign principle. The point is that the same logic could apply to citizens. Say a domestic citizen criminal is due to be deported to be held in a foreign prison, the judiciary decides this is not legal, but then the executive decides to do it anyway, the exact same logic Trump uses ('you can't compel us to take any action related to foreign policy') still applies and the citizen never returns.

result of the due process he was entitled

What exactly does this mean to you? I feel like everyone arguing this is just treating "due process" as an incantation. The part of the process that was missed was that they were supposed to fill out an extra form before doing exactly what they did.

I feel like everyone arguing this is just treating "due process" as an incantation.

I'm fairly certain that this point "due process" has become "enough layers of review until my desired outcome is reached, and no more." Which isn't to say that due process isn't a good idea generally, but maybe we need pre-commitment to what the process should be, like we've started registering scientific studies to prevent cherry-picking results.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats