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 -
This past Wednesday at the Supreme Court saw oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara. For those not following along this is the birthright citizenship executive order case. You can find the full transcript here.
As someone who listened to the live audio and has now read back over the transcript a couple times I think things went pretty poorly for the government. So much so I wonder if this was the straw that broke the camel's back with respect to firing Bondi. I'm very confident this case is going to be 7-2, if not 9-0, against the government.I'm not going to rehearse all the arguments, it's very long.
The government's oral argument mostly focused on the idea that for a child to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of the 14th amendment their parents had to be domiciled here. Where domicile requires (1) lawful presence and (2) intent to stay. The justices (principally Gorsuch, ABC, and KBJ) poke a bunch of holes in this argument. Pointing out both practical and theoretical issues with both parts of the definition. It is not my impression that the justices were especially convinced by Sauer's answers to those questions.
The respondent's oral argument, by my read, was much more focused. Why did Wong Kim Ark mention domicile in some contradictory ways as to whether it mattered? How to understand the association between the posited set of exceptions. If the different language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was any guide in interpreting the 14th amendment. Interestingly Justice Alito even jumped in on this first one to volunteer a reason why Wong Kim Ark might mention domicile in the question and the holding without having incorporated it into the relevant test.
This is all tea-leaf-reading, of course, but my current read is the government is very likely to lose.
Personally from what I’ve seen online they did a good job but it’s a hard fight. Legally the words are not clear and you can be intellectually honest with a contextual argument that birth right citizenship does not exists.
I think the left is correct that you should just nominate team players like Kentanji Jackson. It’s silly our highest legislative body is controlled by who can argue the best. Just simplify it and appoint people who will be loyal and pass the laws you want.
Legislators are elected, not appointed.
I think he's snarking that SCOTUS is, in fact, our highest legislative body.
Correct. And of course Senators were once appointed and not elected. Above someone notes argues how the ACLU argued contextually on the Constitution and the Right is now making “Living” arguments. Until recently the Court did act as a leftist Senate and did the things the left wanted while the right would argue the words.
As power shifts the side with power wants to define the meaning of words. When the court flipped one probably should have expected the right to be “living” theorists and the left to be “textualist”.
I don’t have interests in understanding the arguments in Obgerefell but it seems ridiculous to me that a document can mean one thing for 200 years and something else later. Debating the words just seems like a fun game some nerds play. This case comes down to the word “jurisdiction” and its meaning. I am probably 70-30 it means an expansive with birthright citizenship but when the amendments were passed many of the legislatures would have read the words narrowly. This isn’t physics where there was anl correct answer. It’s the usage of political power.
The meaning of the words to me seems like only something the right has cared about for most of my life. I would prefer to give up the charade and just do what you want to do.
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