site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   37995 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nice try to deflect. He is being tried with a state felony that rests on him committing the federal crime. The state needs to prove as a predicate the federal crime so in effect the state needs to prove the federal crime in order to get the state felony conviction.

No, they don't need to prove the other crime. They need merely get a jury to agree that the state crime was committed in furtherance of the other crime. The legal system is full of this kind of crap; another version of it is where sentencing for one crime can be based on commission of other crimes which were alleged but not proven or sometimes not even prosecuted.

There appears to be no requirement that they prove he actually committed another crime, but only that he intended to commit another crime.

You're just kicking the can down the road. They still have to prove that what they claim he intended was in fact a crime, when the relevant authority already said it isn't.

  1. No, the relevant authorities simply declined to prosecute.

  2. Only courts, not prosecutors, can definitively say whether something constitutes a crime. It is a separation of powers issue. Prosecutors' opinions are not binding on anyone.

  3. Regardless, OP is incorrect to say that the state is charging him with a federal crime. Even if the DA has to prove that he committed the federal crime, he is not charged with that crime. If he is convicted, judgment will be entered on the state crime alone, not the federal crime, and the punishment will be that imposed for the state crime. It is no different than when a person convicted of child molestation in TX moves to CA and is charged with frequenting playgrounds. The DA must prove that he committed the TX crime, but the DA is trying him for violation of a CA law, not a TX law.

Only courts, not prosecutors, can definitively say whether something constitutes a crime.

Not only that, but only courts of a particular jurisdiction can say whether something constitutes a crime in that jurisdiction, meaning the NY court has no way of determining whether or not Trump intended to commit a federal crime.

Regardless, OP is incorrect to say that the state is charging him with a federal crime. Even if the DA has to prove that he committed the federal crime, he is not charged with that crime.

Semantics.

It is no different than when a person convicted of child molestation in TX moves to CA and is charged with frequenting playgrounds. The DA must prove that he committed the TX crime, but the DA is trying him for violation of a CA law, not a TX law.

CA can write a law that says "anyone convicted of child molestation cannot hang around a playground" but they cannot say what constitutes child molestation in TX when he hasn't been convicted there.

the NY court has no way of determining whether or not Trump intended to commit a federal crime.

You say that because you are unfamiliar with the relevant legal concepts. Courts of one jurisdiction apply the laws of other jurisdictions all the time.

Semantics.

If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between 1) charging someone with murder; and 2) alleging that he previously committed a murder, I can't help you.

CA can write a law that says "anyone convicted of child molestation cannot hang around a playground" but they cannot say what constitutes child molestation in TX when he hasn't been convicted there.

The point is that the issue of whether CA can prove that the defendant previously committed a crime in TX has nothing to do with the issue of whether CA is prosecuting the defendant for the TX crime. Again, this is very common.

Can you give one example of choice of law issues in the criminal context (which is a whole different issue compared to civil) where the other law is federal law.

Quiet to the contrary this is not very common.

I don't know why it matters whether the other law is federal or state. A foreign jurisdiction is a foreign jurisdiction:

The least adjudicated elements standard was explicitly adopted in Castro from "the Finley-Crowson line of cases." (People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 301, 316-317; People v. Crowson (1983) 33 Cal.3d 623, 633-635 [190 Cal. Rptr. 165, 660 P.2d 389]; In re Finley (1968) 68 Cal.2d 389, 392-393 [66 Cal. Rptr. 733, 438 P.2d 381].) In those cases the Supreme Court was addressing itself to the manner in which to evaluate convictions in foreign jurisdictions for the purpose of applying California's former habitual offender statute (in Finley), and California's sentence-enhancing Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (f) (in Crowson). In both cases the court held that the foreign conviction could be considered only if the elements of the offense necessary for conviction under the foreign statute are the same as the elements necessary to convict under the comparable California statute; this determination must be made without reference to the facts of the particular offense.

People v. Thomas, 206 Cal. App. 3d 689, 699-700 (1988).

Only courts, not prosecutors, can definitively say whether something constitutes a crime. It is a separation of powers issue.

Citizens United was pretty clear that the purpose of contribution limits is to prevent quid pro quo. Does that count as a court saying something meaningful about what constitutes a crime here?

What Citizens United said was this:

With regard to large direct contributions, Buckley reasoned that they could be given "to secure a political quid pro quo," id., at 26, 96 S.Ct. 612, and that "the scope of such pernicious practices can never be reliably ascertained," id., at 27, 96 S.Ct. 612. The practices Buckley noted would be covered by bribery laws, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 201, if a quid pro quo arrangement were proved. See Buckley, supra, at 27, and n. 28, 96 S.Ct. 612 (citing Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821, 839-840, and nn. 36-38 (CADC 1975) (en banc) (per curiam)). The Court, in consequence, has noted that restrictions on direct contributions are preventative, because few if any contributions to candidates will involve quid pro quo arrangements. MCFL, 479 U.S., at 260, 107 S.Ct. 616; NCPAC, 470 U.S., at 500, 105 S.Ct. 1459; Federal Election Comm'n v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 210, 103 S.Ct. 552, 74 L.Ed.2d 364 (1982) (NRWC). The Buckley Court, nevertheless, sustained limits on direct contributions in order to ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption. That case did not extend this rationale to independent expenditures, and the Court does not do so here.

So, if you are asking whehther federal laws re campaign contributions apply only to quid pro quo contributions, no, they don't. The limits on contributions and the requirement to report contributions apply to all contributions, not just quid pro quo contributions (which, as the Court notes, would be separately prosecutable under bribery statutes).

Note Stevens' dissent, which is claiming that the majority construed the rationale for campaign finance laws too narrowly:

Congress may “legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the appearance of improper influence is also critical . . . if confidence in the system of representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.” A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold

and

Proving that a specific vote was exchanged for a specific expenditure has always been next to impossible: Elected officials have diverse motivations, and no one will acknowledge that he sold a vote. Yet, even if “[i]ngratiation and access . . . are not corruption” themselves, they are necessary prerequisites to it; they can create both the opportunity for, and the appearance of, quid pro quo arrangements.

Stevens tried to push the "appearance of" line, like you have. He tried tying it to "ingratiation and access". Stevens lost. Furthermore, while John Edwards took a million dollars from two specific other people in order to pay off his mistress, what "ingratiation and access" was acquired by Trump paying off Trump's mistress?

You are forgetting that Citizens United was about limits on expenditures, not on contributions. That is the crux of the disagreement between Stevens and the majority; the majority thinks that avoiding the appearance of corruption is sufficient to limit contributions but not independent expenditures, while Stevens thinks it is sufficient to limit both. The majority said:

[T]he Government falls back on the argument that corporate political speech can be banned in order to prevent corruption or its appearance. In Buckley, the Court found this interest “sufficiently important” to allow limits on contributions but did not extend that reasoning to expenditure limits. 424 U. S., at 25. When Buckley examined an expenditure ban, it found “that the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption [was] inadequate to justify [the ban] on independent expenditures.” Id., at 45. . . . For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

558 U.S. 310, 356-357.

Five paragraphs later:

When Buckley identified a sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, that interest was limited to quid pro quo corruption. See McConnell, supra, at 296–298 (opinion of Kennedy, J.) (citing Buckley, supra, at 26–28, 30, 46–48); NCPAC, 470 U. S., at 497 (“The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors”); id., at 498. The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt

More comments

No one is fucking saying he would be booked under federal law and yes it is entirely different from your example. It would be as if CA decided that someone who moved from Texas can be charged with frequenting playgrounds because CA thinks he violated a Texas law despite Texas never actually trying him.

There are numerous legal commentators suggesting this is novel (including the NYT). No one is even saying this novelty is dispositive but it goes to the prudential matter of “should you prosecute.” Your schtick here grows tiresome.

No one is fucking saying he would be booked under federal law

Dude, that is exactly what OP said: "It's not a big stretch for a state prosecutor to charge an individual with a federal crime?"

No one is even saying this novelty is dispositive

Again, that is exactly what OP said. OP claimed that this is "a state prosecutor ... charg[ing] an individual with a federal crime", which would in fact be dispositive, because a state court does not have jurisdiction to try a federal crime. But that is not what is happening.

It would be as if CA decided that someone who moved from Texas can be charged with frequenting playgrounds because CA thinks he violated a Texas law despite Texas never actually trying him.

Which is exactly my point: The CA prosecutor would have to prove the conviction took place, but the prosecutor would not thereby be "charg[ing] an individual with a [Texas] crime", as OP claimed. As @MadMonzer noted, this is completely normal, and it does not transform the prosecution of a CA crime into the prosecution of a TX crime.

The whole substance of the underlying indictment argument is that Trump intended to commit a federal crime and by dint of that crime NYS can charge a separate crime. Of course, no federal prosecutor has attempted to bring that crime.

What that means is that NYS is effectively trying to enforce federal law in substance if not in name. That is what OP was saying.

Once again, this is entirely different from your California example. It would be akin to California saying “We think defendant violated Texas law; despite Texas never charging him or finding him guilty we are going to say it was a violation of Texas law and because we say it is a violation of Texas law we can now bring this separate California charge.”

That is not normal. Not even close.

It raises many questions. For example, if there are questions as to what is in fact Texas law (the defendant could say the law is Y, California could say X — does California court get to determine what is Texas law; what if there are constitutional issues with the Texas law — does a California court get to decide those matters). Once again, this is entirely different from a situation where another forum has adjudicated a matter under that forum’s law.

That is what OP was saying.

No, OP was saying that the state was charging a violation of Federal law, which of course WOULD BE illegitimate were that the case. But it isn't.

if there are questions as to what is in fact Texas law (the defendant could say the law is Y, California could say X — does California court get to determine what is Texas law; what if there are constitutional issues with the Texas law — does a California court get to decide those matters)

Yes. But a CA court's decision re TX law is not binding on TX courts, while a TX court's decision re TX law is binding on CA courts.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats