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 -
A decade ago the supreme court unanimously ruled that people are actually allowed to appeal federal agency rulings to the court system, which the Obama administration did not want. The EPA had attempted to fine a couple $75,000 a day for starting to build a home in compliance with local permitting, on the theory that their land being next to a ditch gave the federal government control over the land. The houses right next to the local lake didn't bother the government: they just randomly picked this couple to ruin. Moreover, the EPA claimed that nobody could challenge its rulings in court, as they were "civil actions" rather than final penalties.
The court remanded the case and allowed the couple to appeal the EPA ruling, and it has been working its way back up the appeals courts ever since.
The couple just won a second unanimous supreme court case against Biden's EPA, which had attempted to define the navigable waters of the united states to mean any land on which there is any standing water at any time of the year (turning about 80% of US land into "water" for legal purposes). The EPA tried to moot the case by withdrawing their compliance order, but
It's interesting and a little encouraging that even the liberal members of the court (except Ginsburg) are not eager to give the executive infinite unappealable power. You might get a letter out of the blue threatening you with ruinous fines or prosecution because some federal agency decided to go after you as a test case, but if you have a hundred million dollars and backing from the US Chamber of Commerce, you might actually win after several decades of legal action.
While all the justices agreed that the EPA was wrong in this particular case the liberals and Kavanaugh authored a separate opinion because they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the clean waters act. The issue is that water flows downstream, you can't protect the navigable waters of the U.S. without preventing people from dumping things into the marsh that flows into them. Congress wasn't super specific about what wetlands the EPA has authority over, I'm not a lawyer but a lot of the wrangling is over distinctions between waters that are "adjoining", "adjacent" or have "a significant nexus" with covered waters.
The EPA's argument was that the Sackett Family was filling in a wetland that had a subsurface flow into Priest lake and so needed federal permits. This got championed by Pacific Legal Fund, an organization founded by Ronald Reagan's former welfare reform team, because they saw a significant opportunity to loosen environmental regulation on property rights. Alito wrote the Majority opinion establishing a new test that only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to navigable waters are covered by the Clean Water Act, which would exclude a lot of wetlands that have been traditionally covered.
Kavanaugh actually broke with the conservative majority and sided with liberals on this issue because he thought that test was too strict. He argued that Alito's continuous surface connection test ignored the common meaning of "adjacent". It would exclude waters separated by man made barriers, such as marshes next to the Mississippi Levees, or swamps that drain into the Chesapeake Bay through subsurface connections. Pollutants dumped in these waters will end up in navigable waters and excluding them from coverage is nonsensical.
As usual with the Supreme Court it does look like Congress really needs to step in and clarify their law. The burden placed on property rights by saying that no one can build on their land if it has a tiny ditch that flows into a covered body of water is too high. But excluding swamps next to rivers without a surface connection from environmental protections seems to ignore basic hydrology.
This. For the most part, the Supreme Court ought to enforce the law as written, only bending words when the strict wording leads to absurdities that were obviously unintended. If Congress wants X, they need to write a law that unambiguously says X.
Honestly, I would like for some sort of formalized law amendment process that can be initialized by the Supreme Court. Something like "This Law is vague, you need to fix it. We've interpreted it as X for this particular case. If that's what it's supposed to be in the future, please reword the Law to state that less ambiguously. If you meant something else, please reword the Law to state that less ambiguously and we can apply that to future cases. But something needs to change here." And then Congress has a limited time to go through some version of the Lawmaking process to fix that Law and clarify their intentions.
They've tried.
From the decision:
Of course this is a conservative thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It looks like a nice reminder that the Supreme Court actually has an important job.
I know we’re incentivized to see the dirtiest and most politicized parts of it. But sometimes a marsh is just a marsh.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link