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 -
New SCOTUS opinion day and today we have the long awaited Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. This is the case about Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, for those unfamiliar.
In a 6-3 decision the court rules that the IEEPA grants the President no authority to impose tariffs. I think crucially it's not just that they find these specific tariffs are not authorized by the statute, but that no tariffs are. That the phrasing of "regulate ... importation" in the statute is not inclusive of tariffs, as the administration argued.I think the breakdown of opinions is itself interesting.
Among the majority there is consensus that (1) the IEEPA does not grant the power to impose tariffs and (2) the administrations arguments otherwise fail but there is also a 3-3 split about why (1) is the case. The three conservatives in the majority (Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch) invoke the major questions doctrine. Finding that the phrase "regulate ... importation" is not clear enough for the sweeping powers the administration claims it conveys. In other statutes where Congress has delegated the power to tariff they have done so clearly and if they want to give the President almost unilateral power to tariff, they need to be equally clear about that. The three liberals in the majority (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson), meanwhile, thing that ordinarily principles of statutory interpretation are sufficient to arrive at this result. Jackson also writes a concurrence that goes into the legislative history to argue that Congress didn't intend to grant the power to tariff.
On the dissent side, Kavanaugh writes the main dissent (with Alito and Thomas joining) arguing that the phrase "regulate ... importation", as a matter of history and tradition, clearly includes the power to impose tariffs. Thomas also writes a separate dissent discussing the non-delegation doctrine. The majority didn't rely on the doctrine at all but Plaintiffs did raise it below and it did come up in the District Court's opinion.
Apart from the merits of the case Gorsuch wrote a concurrence where he calls out a perceived hypocrisy on both sides of the decision. On the liberal side, there are many cases where they have argued in support of sweeping executive power and expansive interpretation, which is the opposite of the side they take here. On the conservative side, those same justices have often argued for narrow or limited meanings of statutory authorization but here take an expansive view of what powers are delegated.
I've made no secret of being a big fan of the Major Questions Doctrine, it seems like an important part of restoring the responsibility and authority of the legislature to legislate precisely and clearly.
Congress continues to be the most broken of the three branches, maybe the Court putting the Presidency back in the constitutional box will help things along.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link