Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[*michaelsean*]

(12-08-2022, 01:35 PM)Dill Wrote: More agreement, at least with the bolded. 

Where you and I tend to separate is when abstract principles are situated or contextualized to specific issues within current U.S. politics, and the meaning I may or may not take away from any specific battle for states rights conflicts with your characterization of the "neutrality" of states rights in general.

What does it mean to support states rights in most of the political battles actually dividing the U.S.?  Big P's statement arose in a discussion about the right to choice, recently taken from citizens in many states. 

From the far right's perspective, that created more "freedom" by returning the decision to outlaw or not to the states--even as their representatives in Congress are working towards laws which would go the other direction and make the ban federal. 

For the record, I would just like to remind everyone that I too have been a consistent defender of states' autonomy, joining SSF in supporting the electoral
college and two senators per state. One of my criticisms of Citizens United was that it took away power to regulate electoral corrupton from states like
Montana. 

So as I approach it, the states rights issue, like the filibuster, cannot really be understood independently of its evolution and deployment within the U.S. goverment. Your goal seems to be to separate it from its history in the battle for civil rights. From my side, reference to that history is about understanding the logic of states rights, the legal opportunities and strategies generated from it. Reference to that history doesn't make defenders of states rights on any specific issue "racist"--e.g., me when I defend MT's right to set its own restrictions on corporate donations to election campaign.  

Do you think states' rights people want to own black people?