(no subject)

[acroyear]

The conservative lie of "states rights" is pretty darn clear if you look at who dissented in the Oregon Suicide Law case at the Supreme Court today...

States seem to only have rights as long as they are doing things that make the majority federal government happy.  If the feds don't like it, the feds rule?

Is that how it was supposed to be?

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

The dissent, in my opinion, is on solid legal and precedential ground in their argument. But in the current case, the other rights at issue outweigh the federal government's rights.

which is my point, to a degree. and in this i would more say "exective branch's rights" over "federal government's rights", but i admit my initial simply referred to "the feds".

the long-term question of any justice is what they believe is best for the country. but the short-term questions (with their own long-term consequences) before the current court and nominees is what they believe is appropriate use of executive branch power and how it rates against the principles that ideological conservatives say they stand for.

This is, in my opinion, Roberts's first test of whether or not he will be a check on executive branch abuse of power, and he's failed that test. He sided with the president's rights having more weight than the states and the democratic principles embedded in the phrase "states rights" (I expected as much from Scalia and Thomas). When the REAL abuses, like the wiretapping case filed by the ACLU, comes before this court, I am now pretty confident exactly where he will decide.