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 think honestly you should have the ability to do a National injunction but it should be a situation where you have to get all the plaintiffs on one case, and it should be automatically taken up by SCOTUS. The first part, to me, is reasonable because it removes the “I’ll keep going before judges until I get my way” tactic. The loss would be the end of the matter. But I think it’s necessary for such a system to exist because there are some decisions that it’s extremely hard to undo, and the courts especially, if there are multiple appeals, can move far too slowly to bring Justice. If I decide to force prisoners to work in a factory on pain of not feeding them unless they do, that’s potentially a serious breach of justice. If it takes 5-6 years for the case to wind through the courts, you have people potentially starved to death before you get a definitive answer on the matter. You can’t undo dead. But because there’s a threat of “okay, but because of the nature of the injunction, it’s only binding until SCOTUS rules on it,” people are going to be appropriately reticent to bring out that big weapon, and only use it in cases where the law is clear on the matter.
The problem is that anything that has a mandatory hearing before the Supreme Court is going to put a massive strain on their case load. Voting Rights Act cases already have this and it’s a huge pain.
More options
Context Copy link
There are also some injunctions that are hard to undo, like an injunction against not spending money.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe, but only if the nation injunction takes effect if the SCOTUS agrees to take it up, and is negated if SCOTUS refuses the case. Otherwise, this could easily cause more harm than it avoids.
One of the critical institutional power factors of the Supreme Court is precisely that it gets to choose it's own cases. This is power over other branches of government, but also a power over the rest of the judiciary. The Supreme Court gets to dodge politically untenable legal issues that could threaten the independence of the court precisely because it reserves the right to ignore a court for now but overrule it later. The ability to disagree later-but-not-now is a positional influence which can allow the Supreme Court members to pick their battle and avoid unfavorable contexts.
Forcing the Supreme Court to take cases is a way of exercising process control/influence to influence the Supreme Court. A coalition that is already willing to abuse injunctions through willing partners in the mid-judiciary could easily use the lack of case autonomy to force the Supreme Court into politically untenable positions that provide the political cover to either force SC endorsement, or use the refusal as the political basis to dismantle institutional independence until the political pressure can dominate. Either way undercuts the Supreme Court's institutional autonomy and pressures it into political conformity with lower courts.
Which might be fine and preferable if you think the lower courts are on your side / substantially correct. But the issue of nationwide injunctions itself- where an overwhelming majority of injunctions in the last quarter century have been against one party, despite the Presidency having been evenly split between two parties- indicate a lack of consensus that would legitimize such a position.
I think that does make a lot of sense. But my main concern is to limit the ability to issue a national injunction to “break-glass” levels of emergency. The idea being that the principle in question is so important to the public good, Justice, or good government that allowing it to continue before SCOTUS takes it on would result in grave harm. I don’t want it completely ended, but at the same time I don’t want it to be used casually as a “we don’t like this” measure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link