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 -
How the hell is the statute of limitations not featured front-and-center in every analysis of the New York case? It seems to me that this is by far the most serious "calendar issue" on offer. The indictment itself, on its face, cannot possibly go to trial under any sane and impartial judge. Even if you accept the underdeveloped theory elevating prima facie misdemeanors to felonies, the statute of limitations on the relevant felonies is five years, for acts alleged to have occurred almost six years ago.
I have read claims--though importantly, still no actual legal documents!--that the prosecutor will argue that Trump was not personally residing in New York for most of that time, and that the statute of limitations tolls while he's President. But there is no statutory support or judicial precedent for this. Statutes of limitations typically toll when it is impossible to serve process on someone, usually because they have fled the jurisdiction and cannot reasonably be found (i.e. they're dodging service). To the contrary: precedent is that nothing in the law prevents service of process against a sitting president. The Justice Department does not prosecute sitting presidents, but can (and does) investigate them, and can charge them later for crimes committed while in office. So there is no legal support--beyond partisan abuse of process--for tolling the statute of limitations on a state crime just because the accused holds federal office.
This is the stuff of summary judgment (though again, only assuming the New York judiciary isn't also willing to simply cast off the rule of law so long as doing so seems to harm Trump in some way, which may be too much to assume)--meaning if the New York stuff actually goes to trial, justice will already be shown to be inoperative in Trump's case.
Now, the classified documents and the Georgia stuff are something else, and should be considered in light of the specific circumstances of each potential case. But I have a hard time imagining the judges of New York to be so unhinged as to just steamroll the statute of limitations in pursuit of Trump. Even if the trial court judge goes along with it, I would expect Trump's legal team to immediately appeal, potentially all the way to SCOTUS, just for a summary judgment. Since this is a pure question of law, there is no dispute on the relevant facts (dates offered), and even going to trial would constitute a preventable harm, I cannot see this case ever making it to trial. If it does, it will greatly strengthen my priors against the long-term viability of the United States continuing to exist as a single nation, because it will be strong evidence that the courts of New York have degenerated to "kangaroo" status.
My understanding is that there is New York precedent for this. The practice is probably unconstitutional as an equal protection violation, but that would end up at SCOTUS.
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.
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."
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."
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
More options
Context Copy link