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 you're missing my go-to explanation. The conservatives on the Supreme Court want there to be a right to keep and bear arms for legal debating society reasons; it fits their judicial philosophy. However, except Thomas, none of the justices actually want people to be able to own and carry weapons. They are perfectly happy to let anti-gun circuit courts do the dirty work of reinterpreting Bruen into nothingness, and to not correct them (though they do correct the Fifth Circuit when it takes gun rights seriously)
In fact, the law of the land now is not Bruen but Rahimi, specifically the part of Rahimi which noted that there was historical precedent for laws against going armed to the terror of the public. And what "going armed to the terror of the public" is, is entirely up to the several states. Combine that with the 3D printing cases, and what the 2nd Amendment effectively says is "Notwithstanding any other part of this Constitution, the power of Congress and the several States to regulate anything to do with arms shall not be questioned." And this is as pro-gun a court as we're likely to ever get ever get. The Second Amendment is done; that's all folks.
Or, framed slightly differently, SCOTUS interprets the second amendment as permitting states to broadly regulate citizen ownership and use of firearms as they see fit, much like they now do with, say, abortion. The intention was always that Texas and Idaho might have vastly more permissive firearms legislation than California and New Jersey.
SCOTUS recognizes that the equilibrium where the public and elected representatives and elected governments in many of the richest and most populous (blue) states are prevented from legislating their own domestic in-state firearms policy (which does not relate to core federal government spheres like defense, border control, foreign policy, interstate commerce or central banking) against their will is unstable and will, at some point, result in the court being packed and the US’ brief experiment in comparatively greater freedoms reverting to the current European/Canadian/Australian model, not just when it comes to gun ownership but in every other case too.
The same motivation to accommodate local political sentiment, for example, is what struck down mandatory gerrymandering of black-majority districts in some southern states that was forced upon them, and what struck down Roe.
But that's not really framed differently, especially in context of, I dunno, 1A. That's been held to protect citizens of [every] state from State government overreach, which is why it's a problem that 2A isn't treated the same way.
Not that 1A doesn't get threatened in things like the DefDist case, which is Blue states trying to make law for the rest of the nation; I see no reason that an election or an appointment shouldn't have consequences when Blue states lose them and "but muh court packing" is special pleading.
The First Amendment as it is today is a product of the mid-late 20th century and, ironically given its current ideological stance, the ACLU. For the vast majority of American history it was never interpreted as preventing individual states from banning various kinds of speech, including under very broad definitions of obscenity. The current interpretation arguably only exists because of liberalism. A muscular court would roll it back and return most speech legislation to the states, but it is what it is for now.
If we are doing constitutional history (as the originalist movement says we should be) this is the key point. The people who wrote the Constitution in 1789 didn't think it needed a Bill of Rights at all because the Constitution didn't grant the federal government the kinds of power that a Bill of Rights was needed to restrict, and the people who ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights (which they added because they quite properly didn't trust the feds on that point) definitely didn't want the Bill of Rights to be enforceable against the States.
Some of the rights in the Bill of Rights are rights the framers considered fundamental, so as well as putting them in the BoR they also wrote them into their state constitutions. Free speech and criminal juries are the classic examples*. But some of the BoR is about federalism, not fundamental rights. In particular, the Establishment clause was pure federalism (most states had state-level established religions in 1789, although not for long afterwards) and the 2nd amendment was mostly federalism (most states had some kind of RKBA in their state constitutions, but nothing as broad as the right protected against the feds by the 2nd amendment - the framers wanted the states to have the right to regulate their own militias).
The fundamental rights protected by the Bill of Rights should have become enforceable against the States under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th amendment (turned into an inkblot by the Gilded Age SCOTUS in the Slaughterhouse cases) and actually did under civil rights era substantive due process doctrine.
That would be dubiously faithful to the Constitutional text given that the 14th amendment exists in a way it didn't at the founding. It would also be lousy policy given the availability of forum-shopped strategic lawsuits against online speech. But the weak version of this claim is correct - a serious originalist Court would need to think about how to mesh the founding-era understanding of the Bill or Rights as a backstop to federalism as much as to fundamental rights with the 14th amendment requirement to protect citizens' rights against overweening state government, and the only justice who has even tried to do that is Thomas in his Establishment clause dissents. The fact that the substantive due process approach to incorporation that the Court had to adopt in order to avoid publicly calling out Slaughterhouse as a Dredd Scott tier mistake is intellectually incoherent doesn't help.
* SCOTUS has never enforced the 7th amendment requirement for civil juries against the states - I'm not sure how this relates to founding-era practice.
More options
Context Copy link
True; hate speech as broad exception has been the Dem [read: conservative] cause/excuse for doing so for as long as I can remember, and a good chunk of 1A cases have already gone down that way.
However, the court isn't muscularly liberal on 2A as Red was hoping (for the same kind of advancement and cultural shift that it would force on Blue states as the incorporation on 1A was for Red states back then- turns out a sizeable minority in Blue states actually want guns, perhaps to protect themselves against the obvious consequences of Blue policies?), and that's still the central issue here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's definitely a model and it does explain an anti-gun court that doesn't just grant-and-eviscerate all the time, but I'm kinda filing it under 'Thomas is writing a dissent', and there's still not enough there to explain the relist count. Thomas can write very long dissents, but especially if the other eight (or even seven) justices were never going to take Bruen seriously, he has all the more recent to write that long dissent as soon as Snope dropped last year. If he's not and knows he's not persuading them, the relists do nothing.
Conversely, if Thomas is getting something non-obvious out of it, why wouldn't the majority just GVR, per curium, or give a long angels-on-pin-head meaningless opinion? Roberts never has to assign the opinion to Thomas against post-Bruen, and even if he did, it clearly didn't do anything.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link