site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35776 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The practice is probably unconstitutional as an equal protection violation

What would be the rationale for that law being an equal protection violation?

Besides, note that many states have similar provisions, and have had them for decades, so any claims that they are unconstitutional would certainly have been litigated long ago.

What would be the rationale for that law being an equal protection violation?

Because it affords New York residents the protection of a statute of limitations that aren't afforded to residents of other states.

But it is not enough to show different treatment. A law, like this one, which discriminates based on something other than a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, is perfectly fine under the Equal Protection Clause unless it is either 1) aimed at an illegitimate objective; or 2) not rationally related to a legitimate objective. That is an " extremely deferential" standard. Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 961 F.3d 635, 653 (4th Cir. 2020), and "those attacking the rationality of the legislative classification have the burden 'to negative every conceivable basis which might support it.'" F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 314-15 (1993).

I have not conducted an exhaustive review, but the following courts have rejected arguments that such laws violate violate either the EP Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause, or both:

State v. Sher, 437 NW 2d 878 (Wis: Supreme Court 1989)

Commonwealth v. Lightman, 339 Pa. Super. 359, 489 A.2d 200 (1985)

Scherling v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 22 Cal. 3d 493 (1978).

State v. Cawley, 110 NM 705 (1990)

Commonwealth v. George, 430 Mass. 276 (1999)

People v. James, 326 Mich. App. 98 (2018)

State v. March, 395 SW 3d 738 (Tenn: Court of Criminal Appeals 2011)

Also, it should be evaluated under strict scrutiny because it goes to a fundamental right (due process), which is the other reason for strict scrutiny besides suspect classification.

All the cases I cited disagree with you.

Last time I saw a citation from you, the wording made clear it was dicta and I suspected the very next word was "But". You were entirely unapologetic when I called you on it and suggested I look it up myself. I did, and not only was it dicta and not only was the next word literally "But", but it was in a footnote besides. So I'm not inclined to go digging through your citations to see what you're leaving out. And in any case, they're all from state courts and this is a Federal question. It is no great surprise that state courts find their own statutes that disadvantage out-of-state residents are perfectly fine.

No, I explained that I was very clear from the get-go that the statement was dicta, and that the "but" was in the form, "a law that said X would be legitimate, but this law does not say X."

And in any case, they're all from state courts and this is a Federal question.

Lol now you are really stretching; as if state courts don't invaldate state statutes on federal constitutional grounds every day of the week. And as if the CA Supreme Court in the late 1970s wasn't very friendly to criminal defendants, yet ruled unanimously against this one.

Look, you made a claim about the state of the law which, from the available evidence, appears to be incorrect. So what? Everyone has done that, including me. There is no shame in it. And maybe there are other cases which support your argument; I certainly would like to see them, because they might turn out to be helpful at work.

PS:

State v. Sher: "At oral argument, Sher's counsel also asserted the tolling provision violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. "If a statutory classification does not involve a suspect class or a fundamental [right],t will be sustained if there is any rational basis to support it." (citation omitted). The protection provided by the statute of limitations is not a fundamental right. Sher's counsel does not allege that "residency" is a suspect classification nor do we independently find that it is."

Commonwealth v. Lightman: "We therefore measure appellants' equal protection claim by the less rigorous rational relationship standard applicable to rights which are not deemed to be fundamental."

Scherling: "Thus, in this instance we measure defendant's equal protection claim by the less rigorous rational relationship standard applicable to rights which are not deemed to be fundamental."

Cawley: "We thus conclude that the application of the tolling provision here did not violate defendant's right to travel, and apply the rational basis test in determining the statute's constitutionality under defendant's equal protection challenge, and not review under the strict scrutiny standard as urged by defendant."

George: "Under rational basis review, which we conclude is the appropriate standard of review, the Legislature is not required to "create statutory classifications with surgical precision.""

James: "The Legislature distinguishes between Michigan residents and nonresidents for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations for certain crimes. There are rational grounds for doing so, including the investigation, prosecution, and, indeed, the very discovery of previously unreported crimes. Given this, it is not a violation of defendant's right to interstate travel or equal protection to charge him with CSC-III related to alleged criminal conduct not reported until after the untolled limitations periods had expired."

March: "Defendant does not contend that he is a member of a suspect class, and we have concluded that the tolling statute does not impermissibly interfere with Defendant's constitutional right to travel. Thus, an equal protection analysis requires only "that the classification challenged be rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

Not a single Federal court in your list.

So, you know of a federal case that refutes these?

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