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 -
Supreme Court strikes down Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan:
The amusing thing here to me is that we got two major SCOTUS rulings in two days that are, on the face of it, not directly related to each other in any obvious way (besides the fact that they both deal with the university system). One could conceivably support one ruling and oppose the other. The types of legal arguments used in both cases are certainly different. And yet we all know that the degree of correlation among the two issues is very high. If you support one of the rulings, you're very likely to support the other, and vice versa.
The question for the floor is: why the high degree of correlation? Is there an underlying principle at work here that explains both positions (opposition to AA plus opposition to debt relief) that doesn't just reduce to bare economic or racial interest? The group identity angle is obvious. AA tends to benefit blacks and Hispanics at the expense of whites and Asians. Student debt relief benefits the poorer half of the social ladder at the expense of the richer half of the social ladder. Whites and Asians tend to be richer than blacks and Hispanics. So, given a choice of "do you want a better chance of your kids getting into college, and do you also not want your tax dollars going to people who couldn't pay off their student loans", people would understandably answer "yes" to both - assuming you’re in the appropriate group and that is indeed the bargain that’s being offered to you. But perhaps that's uncharitable. Which is why I'm asking for alternative models.
Yes. The conservatives on the court thing that the government should adhere to the constitution more strictly than the liberals on the court.
I got what I wanted out of the student loan decision, but I don't understand how you can read the opinion and dissent and come away with the impression that it was decided on strict constitutionalism.
In the textualist tradition/method of interpretation, words are given their original public meaning, which refers to the meaning a reasonable, intelligent, but not necessarily legally proficient,reader would get from the statute at the time of its enactment. This obviously flows from the text, but equally obviously, it is strongly influenced by the history, structure, and context of the provisions being referenced. This is because the meaning of words, in common parlance, is strongly dependent upon the context in which they are written or spoken.
Turning to the particular case in front of the Court, the majority essentially held that the words "modify" and "waive", when most naturally read, only allow for modest adjustments, additions, or changes, not completely transformative ones akin to what the Department of Education was claiming the HEROES Act allowed it to do with respect to the student loan debt cancellation. With regard to this, I am in near-complete agreement with Roberts's opinion. There was, of course, a certain back-and-forth between the majority and the dissent with regard to the relevance, validity, and importance of the Major Questions Doctrine to this case (and Justice Barrett framed her entire concurrence around responding to Justice Kagan's dissent on these points); nevertheless, the MQD categorically did not supply the fundamental basis for the decision. Rather, for those Justices who agree with it, it merely represented another (secondary) point in its favor.
Now, the discussion about the standing of the states suing the Department (particularly Missouri) does seem significantly more suspect, and, at least from my perspective, the dissent has the better of that argument (which, of course, would mean that the lawsuit would be dismissed entirely). Nevertheless, it's clear that this doesn't have much of anything to do with "textualism" versus "strict constructionism"; rather, it is a decision regarding a jurisprudential doctrine (standing) that flows from the (textually vague and unhelpful) words "the judicial Power of the United States" in Article 3 of the Constitution. The Court has traditionally interpreted that by looking at precedent and at the common law that influenced the thinking and decision-making of the Framers of the Constitution.
Our Standing doctrine isn’t compelled by the constitution or its history.
It is the crazy idea that Congress or the Executive could harm everyone equally by a million dollars and no one can sue (because the harm is general) yet if the same convenes or executive harm a single actor by one dollar, then such person could sue since it was a special harm.
Corporate law provides a better system.
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