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 -
Trump Indicted: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/30/donald-trump-indicted-in-hush-money-payment-case.html
This is a major enough story that I think it goes beyond needing more than just a link.
Florida governor Ron DeSantis will not assist with extradition: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/desantis-trump-charges-are-un-american-says-florida-will-not-assist-in-extradition-request-by-manhattan
INAL but my understanding is that this is not strictly true. As this is a state rather than federal indictment, law enforcement in Florida could simply decline to exercise the warrant and there would be little if anything that the DA in Manhattan could do about it.
Strictly speaking, since 1987 state (and territory, etc) extradition warrants can be compelled by the federal courts; there are only a small handful of valid reasons to reject one (mostly paperwork errors or clear cases of mistaken identity), none likely to be usable here.
In practice, this means that the harmed party (who?) could sue in federal court for a writ of mandamus, which would resolve in a year or so.
Ah yes 1987... a year of great constitutional import when many questions about state and federal powers were resolved via a grand constitutional convention /sarc.
I have no idea why people treat these judicial precedents as anything but worthless paper. The state of California is litterally openly running a drug cartel with itself exercising a monopoly on illegal cannabis dealing within the state, collecting tribute form lower order kingpins violating federal law... and we're supposed to pretend our legal system operates on any principle except might makes right, and shamelessness?
If a governor even had federal agents arrested and cut loose before they could enforce warrants do you really think there's anywhere near enough political will to send troops and start a contitutional crisis?
Section 2 of Article IV of the US Constitution (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#4) says
A plain-and-simple reading of that seems to agree that the Florida can't refuse the extradition. But there will be centuries case law working out the precise procedural details of how it has to happen. Apparently in 1987 one of the corner-cases got tweaked.
So when Alabama demands Governor Gavin Newsom to be extradited as the Kingpin in the case of a low level drug smuggler bring weed into the state that was "Legally" purchased in California... what do you expect to happen?
A procedural tar-pit.
The procedural rules are put in place precisely because the bare words of the constitution would allow that kind of shit you name. This is why people pay attention to precedent.
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
More options
Context Copy link