In comments, JutGory wrote:<\/p>\n
There is very little tolerance on the left for any notion of \u201cstates rights,\u201d even when the issue has nothing to do with race.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It’s true that “states’ rights” has a long and shameful history as a refuge for racists, but that’s not why I dislike hearing arguments based on states’ rights. I dislike states’ rights arguments because the right-wing reverence for states’ rights is so <\/em>opportunistic. <\/p>\n
Where were state’s rights when Republicans in Congress decided to involve themselves in Terry Schiavo’s medical care? Or when Republicans try to whittle away abortion rights nationwide? Or when they try to stomp on state’s medical marijuana laws? Or when they tried to amend the Federal constitution to stomp on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts? Or when they try and set national tort laws to control how lawsuits in state courts will turn out? <\/p>\n
Just as judicial activism is rightwingspeak for “any judge’s ruling that conservatives don’t like,” states’ rights is rightwingspeak for “any policy conservatives don’t like is unconstitutional.” There is no “principle” of states rights beyond that, because Republicans never have and never will care about states rights as anything but a tactical weapon that can be used to attack whatever policies they disagree with.<\/p>\n
Of course, Democrats don’t care about states’ rights either, but at least they rarely put on airs pretending <\/em>that states rights are a Holy principle that must Never Be Contravened unless it’s convenient.<\/p>\n
My position on states rights versus federal rights? Here it is: I don’t care.<\/p>\n
I do care about policy. When a state has good policy on medical marijuana, and the Feds want to crush sick people for smoking pot, then I’m on the state government’s side. When a state wants to force pregnant women to give birth against their will, and Federal law prevents that, then I’m on the Federal government’s side. But I’m not going to pretend that the exact same policy is a horrible offense to freedom when done by the Feds, but perfectly acceptable when done by a state government.<\/p>\n
If a policy really is <\/em>a boot on the neck, then you don’t need to know if the boot belongs to the state or federal government to know it sucks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In comments, JutGory wrote: There is very little tolerance on the left for any notion of \u201cstates rights,\u201d even when the issue has nothing to do with race. It’s true that “states’ rights” has a long and shameful history as … Continue reading