In your recent sticky in GQ, Manhattan, you set forth the following rule:
First, I want to agree that acrimonious political debates have no place in GQ, and in that respect I think it’s an excellent rule.
But it seems to me that the stance you’re taking may be extending too far. For an example of what I’m seeing, let’s take the Bush v. Gore 2000 acrimony as an example.
Suppose an OP asks something innocuous about what the term “political question” means in jurisprudence. In the course of discussion, various examples of what the courts have regarded as nonjusticiable “political questions” and what they’ve agreed to hear cases on are mentioned – and the SCOTUS Bush v. Gore rulings come up.
In dealing with the latter, two possible statements can be made:
This is clearly a political opinion with no business being posted in GQ, and your warning on it would be seen as proper by all right-thinking Dopers who respect the rules.
Now, the second:
This is a statement of fact, and the most rabid of pro-Bush Republicans would have to concede that, if valid, it represents a problem with which the Bush Administration and the Courts must deal for the legitimacy of the former and the non-political, evenhanded reputation of the latter to survive.
Too, it can be said in a way that does not represent belligerence, but rather a placing of a datum that must be dealt with into the mix of what constitutes a “political question” and why the courts tend to avoid them. In fact, I’d give it as an excellent example of why the courts are ill-advised to enter into what Frankfurter once called the “political thicket.”
Would you care to comment on how this sort of statement would fit with regard to your rule?
- Number produced from the Polycarp Rectum Databank, and not to be relied on by any debater.