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.
My best guess (and that is all I claim it is) is that we might get a baby-splitting decision that manages to somehow save the citizenship status of persons who have already been enjoying the privileges of citizenship due to being born here, whilst opening the door for denying future persons birthright citizenship on broader grounds, going forward.
Roberts really does love his 'compromise' rulings.
There is certainly an "estoppel" argument where, if the U.S. government has declined to challenge a person's claim to citizenship, and has been conferring upon them the benefits of citizenship since their birth, that it would be manifestly unjust to then later suddenly declare them a noncitizen without some other legitimate justification for expulsion.
But that wouldn't mean that every person in the U.S. going forward would get that same benefit. Surely there's also an argument that if a person enters the U.S. completely undocumented, in violation of multiple immigration laws (most of which were implemented after Wong Kim Ark), and the government by its actions (i.e., enforcing its immigration laws and siccing its agents on them to remove them) declares that it doesn't abide their presence here... any kid(s) they manage to pop out wouldn't be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. in a politically meaningful sense?
It certainly seems, to me, that Citizenship should in theory require a governmental stamp of approval. That is, one shouldn't be able to just enter a territory, trigger some arbitrary condition ("eats a handful of the local dirt" as an absurd example) then declare themselves citizen without the government even being aware of their presence. Citizenship is a political designation after all.
Anyway, I am woefully underinformed (for an attorney) on 14th amendment matters. Its simply not my specialty, so this is me more going off my reads of the Justices themselves than strict legal reasoning. Birthright citizenship had been the default for so long that it never occurred to me to even consider if it could be challenged.
From the purely practical standpoint, if SCOTUS declares birthright citizenship completely inalienable outside of the few narrow exceptions, and congress won't use its clear authority to adjust this (which, I can't expect they will) then the only possible response that makes sense is to implement the most stringent border controls imaginable, if merely being born here gets you a valid social security number and entitlement to claim any and all benefits they might then qualify for.
That is, if we're going to maintain the current web of welfare benefits and entitlements and wealth transfers where existing citizens who are obligated to keep on paying taxes will be on the hook to pay for every single kid who happens to be born here, whether that kid is productive or not, and every single one of said kids will also be entitled to vote on the continuation and extension of such benefits, we're starting to diminish the political value of being a net taxpayer at all.
At some point it is valid to question whether the Constitution is still fulfilling the purposes it was created for as per the Preamble.
EDIT: And to be clear, I am absolutely fine with biting a bullet where even kids born in the U.S.A. where both their parents are citizens wouldn't inherently get to claim citizenship. I think exile is a politically useful tool and should be used more often, and its actually a bad thing that the U.S. only has the options of life imprisonment or execution for certain classes of crimes, the latter of which is very difficult to implement.
This seems like the most likely answer here; Roberts will kick the responsibility for unraveling this back on Congress, who will, predictably, do fuck-all in either direction.
Generally speaking, the most accurate heuristic I've found for predicting supreme court cases is "what decision will allow Roberts to keep attending beltway dinner parties". So far only the recent abortion ruling has failed that one.
Yep.
That the Supreme Court has swung more conservative in recent years is somewhat hiding the fact that Roberts will tack with the wind but generally keeps both wings of the court from capsizing the boat with a major upheaval ruling.
I genuinely wondered, way back when, why Roberts was made Chief Justice immediately upon his appointment, despite several other sitting Justices having seniority.
This is probably why. Both sides (at the time) could stomach his ascension to the position for exactly this reason.
It's a little bit of SCOTUS trivia but the "Chief Justice" is just a particular seat on the court. Only 3 (of 17) Chief Justices were raised from an Associate and only 5 had ever been an Associate before becoming Chief.
Yeah, the need for Senate Approval at least divorces the decision from any internal court politics, probably for the best.
In theory it doesn't add much prestige compared to getting the seat in the first place. So much of their apparent influence is defined by traditions that they don't care to upend.
Still, it would make sense that you'd want that seat occupied by a relative moderate.
The most important thing is being able to assign the opinion if in the majority.
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