What's worth sacrificing to win "the Culture War?"

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I'm sure everyone here can agree that there's a culture war going on between hardcore Christians and... well, people who aren't. We talk about it here all the time. We fight over public education, especially science education. We fight over gay marriage. We fight over religious rights and privilege, etc... Well here's a lecture by a speaker who thinks he knows how to win the culture war for Christianity, entitled Rescuing America: Restore Normalcy & Win Culture War [sic]. His strategy is summarized in his video descriptions as the following steps:

• Get real news
• Privatize the public schools
• End judicial review

The first two points are just Christian paranoia: a "liberal" media and public schools indoctrinating their kids (away from their indoctrination).

The third and last point gives me pause. He wants to end judicial review?! I know the courts haven't always been "on their side" but that's going pretty damn far. Never mind that he has the audacity to claim that judicial review itself is "unconstitutional," but aren't they afraid of the day when they might want to challenge an act of government? Do they honestly believe that the government will never do anything against the interests of Christianity? Isn't the judiciary a part of their government?

How desperate do you have to be to "win the culture war" that you're willing to give up judicial review? Are they really losing this war? According to PZ Myers, we're the ones who are losing...

Who's winning this war? Is judicial review worth sacrificing? What else is?
Thank you...

 

[Aught3]

The culture 'war' is a conservative frame. The more progressives use it, the more ground they concede to the right. The right-wing agenda got a lot of what it wanted under Bush, with some pretty disastrous results. What American progressives need to do is find a way to articulate their own moral vision in a way that resonates with the voters. Obama was the first US politician since Kennedy that was able to do this but debates over policies still take place under conservative frames. The culture 'war' is a series of fringe moral issues design to perpetually energise the right, in most cases conservative politicians will only make weak attempts to change these hot-button issues while in office. The only way for the left to win is to stop talking about it as a war.

 

[Unwardil]

The word war is a cunning trick to incite the thought of violence and of conflict subconsciously. Asking the question 'How do moderates win the culture war' is about as leading a question as 'what do we do about the jewish problem'.

War is when two groups of people start killing each other because all other means of problem resolution have broken down. "I want that thing you have." "Well you can't have it." "Ok, I'll kill you if you don't give it." "Bring it on bitch!"

That's war. And it's only war when side A actually goes the next step and begins to bring it.

The thing about war is how polarizing it is. People have an amazing instinct to rally together when threatened. They gain courage in numbers and, with the right kind of leadership, will subvert their own will to that of a cause. That's why the right, and especially the religious right loves this kind of rhetoric. Because the people they're talking to have already made themselves part of a mob. So first threaten that mob with some kind of threat, then declare war on it. Instant support for whatever the hell it is you're proposing.

Also, it has the advantage of forcing opposition down to your level. If someone shows up with a gun and all you have is an honest desire to co-exist amicably, you'd better hope you've got someone with a gun who's on your side or you're just going to get shot.


So what's the solution?

Same as in real war. Nuclear fucking weapons. Nukes are great, because anyone with even half a brain wouldn't dare use one and especially not against someone who has one themselves and it's very hard to be at war with someone and not use a nuke if you're losing, so you basically just don't go to war with people who have nukes cause there's nothing to gain.

I'd have to think blackmail would be the best, you know, stuff that's not strictly ethical but doesn't sacrifice your goals. The kind of 'Cease and desist your stupid crap or we'll publish all this stuff about you. Yeah, it doesn't even have to be true because it looks true enough and you and I know people are stupid enough to believe what they hear. Can you prove you didn't molest those children? Didn't think so asshole so why don't you just go away forever, kay thanks'.

So yes, if progressives are going to be forced to fight be conservatives, they should fight dirty is what I'm saying. In war, fighting fair gets people killed. Fighting fair is for losers. Progressives want good public education, fair and accountable judiciary and government and overall best possible quality of living for all. If this guy is a threat to those things, destroy his ability to be a threat. There's nothing incongruous about that.

 

[kenandkids]

Technically, judicial review is unconstitutional... in the sense that it wasn't part of, or the intent of, the constitution. This power is one taken by the court, for the court. Marbury v. Madison in either 1803 or 1805, I forget which.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Technically, judicial review is unconstitutional... in the sense that it wasn't part of, or the intent of, the constitution. This power is one taken by the court, for the court. Marbury v. Madison in either 1803 or 1805, I forget which.

That's not much of a sense. That's like saying marriage is technically "unconstitutional... in the sense that it wasn't part of, or the intent of, the constitution."

Judiciary review was accepted and practiced before Marbury v. Madison. I think it's unfair to say that judiciary review was "taken" by the courts. It appears to have been given to them by Congress with the enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Ever since then, it has been ceded by the other branches of government, at both state and federal levels, and without objections...

Marbury v. Madison was merely the first time an act of another branch of federal government, namely Congress, was actually declared unconstitutional as interpreted by the Supreme Court. There were many other cases before then where the Supreme Court did its duty in interpreting the constitution...




Sadly, this is all beside my point. I will accept everyone's suggestion and ask whether the zeitgeist of the US is really shifting away from fundamentalist Christianity, as the speaker of Rescuing America thinks, or if it's shifting the other way as PZ Myers suggests? Furthermore, I'm disappointed that no one has chosen to address the other questions: is giving up judicial review worth this change in culture? What would be?

 

[Gnomesmusher]

It depends on who is losing this "war". To the losing side, getting rid of judicial review is worth it. Or maybe it doesn't matter who is losing, the fact is that as you pointed out, the courts tend not to be on the side of the hardcore christians so it's probably worth it to those extremists. If in this hypothetical situation where they get rid of judicial review and get to run things their way for a while, no doubt that they'll set up their own judicial review with their own laws. They're pretty much paving the way for a theocracy.

 

[kenandkids]

That's not much of a sense. That's like saying marriage is technically "unconstitutional... in the sense that it wasn't part of, or the intent of, the constitution."

Judiciary review was accepted and practiced before Marbury v. Madison. I think it's unfair to say that judiciary review was "taken" by the courts. It appears to have been given to them by Congress with the enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Ever since then, it has been ceded by the other branches of government, at both state and federal levels, and without objections...

Marbury v. Madison was merely the first time an act of another branch of federal government, namely Congress, was actually declared unconstitutional as interpreted by the Supreme Court. There were many other cases before then where the Supreme Court did its duty in interpreting the constitution...

I'm not sure where you are arguing me here. You're very first helping of sauce said:

Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself.
The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]
In Marbury v. Madison (1803),[2] the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution. Marbury was the first Supreme Court case to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. Since that time, the federal courts have exercised the power of judicial review. Judicial review is now a well settled doctrine.

There were many other cases before then where the Supreme Court did its duty in interpreting the constitution...

Yes, but their scope was limited at this point. They were the third branch, not the "trump" branch. They could interpret intent and law to a degree. Now they can install presidents and call corporations people on the flimsiest and most partisan interpretations possible.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I'm not sure where you are arguing me here. You're very first helping of sauce said:

Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself.
The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]
In Marbury v. Madison (1803),[2] the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution. Marbury was the first Supreme Court case to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. Since that time, the federal courts have exercised the power of judicial review. Judicial review is now a well settled doctrine.

Did you read the whole "sauce" or did you stop the instant you saw something that vaguely supported your case?

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court finally got a chance to make a statement about judiciary review by actually getting around to striking down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. It had this power before then. This case was just the first time it had an opportunity to exercise it. Honestly, if you find that Wikipedia paragraph misleading, I'll happily fix it for you...

According to the very source you quoted, even at the Constitution Convention, where the Constitution was made,

...the framers indicated that the power of judges to declare laws unconstitutional was part of the system of separation of powers. The framers stated that the courts' power to declare laws unconstitutional would provide a check on the legislature, protecting against excessive exercise of legislative power.

I've left out all the details for brevity but please follow the link to see what they discussed. The framers of the Constitution very much had judicial review in mind when they made it...

There were many other cases before then where the Supreme Court did its duty in interpreting the constitution...

Yes, but their scope was limited at this point. They were the third branch, not the "trump" branch. They could interpret intent and law to a degree. Now they can install presidents and call corporations people on the flimsiest and most partisan interpretations possible.

How was their scope limited? The Judiciary was always doing what they did with Marbury v. Madison, it's just that those cases either didn't rise to the Supreme Court or they just happened to not rule against Congress...

You don't sound like you just disagree with me. You sound bitter about the issue. Why is that? Do you understand that it's the Judiciary that protects you from the government?

How is the Judiciary the "trump" branch of government? That's like saying the executive branch is the trump branch because the President has the power of veto...

The Judiciary has no power in making legislation nor can they instigate any action. The only time they get to do anything is if anyone asks them to. For example, unlike the President, they don't get to veto laws they don't like. The law has to get passed, it has to be applied in some manner, then someone (who can't be them) has to formally challenge the law, it then has to rise up the judicial system and, eventually, maybe the Supreme Court will see the case and render an opinion. That's some trump card...

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

It depends on who is losing this "war". To the losing side, getting rid of judicial review is worth it. Or maybe it doesn't matter who is losing, the fact is that as you pointed out, the courts tend not to be on the side of the hardcore christians so it's probably worth it to those extremists. If in this hypothetical situation where they get rid of judicial review and get to run things their way for a while, no doubt that they'll set up their own judicial review with their own laws. They're pretty much paving the way for a theocracy.

I guess but that's pretty short sighted...

I didn't say the courts tend not to favour hardcore Christians, I merely said that they haven't always. Even if the culture favours them, that doesn't mean the government always will. The Judiciary protects them just as much as it protects us... and why do they support this? Because they think that things are changing and are afraid. Well, that really makes him short-sighted if they think that culture and potentially the government are changing away from Christianity and they want to end the very thing that will protect them from said government...

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I guess but that's pretty short sighted...

I didn't say the courts tend not to favour hardcore Christians, I merely said that they haven't always. Even if the culture favours them, that doesn't mean the government always will. The Judiciary protects them just as much as it protects us... and why do they support this? Because they think that things are changing and are afraid. Well, that really makes him short-sighted if they think that culture and potentially the government are changing away from Christianity and they want to end the very thing that will protect them from said government...

Well, most of the key issues in the "culture wars" (man I hate that term) like creationism in public schools, separation of church and state disputes, abortion, etc etc. have pretty much have had the courts deciding against what the fundies have wanted. I don't see the trend changing anytime soon unless of course, judicial ruling is done away with. So yes, they are short sighted and they're also desperate.