4 ms·

The autonomy of USA's "states" is getting erroded more and more everyday.

by VWWHFSfQ 7y ago

supernova87a 7y ago
What do you mean?
- saagarjha 7y ago
  It seems like the parent commenter is unhappy that the Supreme Court ruled to end a state practice, likely one that they supported, even though such “interference” is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.
  - supernova87a 7y ago
    I express my puzzlement, because I would love the parent to come back and explain. I would bet that the principle the parent embraces is not "states have a right to exercise autonomy" but rather "states have a right to exercise autonomy on those things I agree with". You know, like when people advocate for states' rights, except when a state decides to do something like narrow the right to handguns, or environmental regulations, or something like that. I thought that we agreed as a country that things guaranteed in the Constitution applied regardless of what state.
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  Defacto, it used to be the case that states had the ability to select their own rules regarding juries. Some states required unanimous verdicts and some did not. Now, it is likely the case that defacto states do not have that ability. Since America broadly follows rule of law, I think it is highly likely that this decision will be enforced. According to the supreme court, it was never legally the case that the states had that right, and the states will have to decide how to respond with respect to the incorrectly convicted people. But many people were put in prison on the basis of majority verdicts and this decision doesn't give them their time served back - it only changes the future. So the op is right to consider that something has changed and states are likely to be unable to do something that they used to do. It is surely not a hill I would want to die on, and I surely do not think a state should have a right to preserve white supremacy.[] It seems we all knew what the right to jury trial meant, and conservatives have been arguing for the court to consider the originalist meaning. [] I don't think a majority verdict necessarily needs to have any relationship with white supremacy, and I'm aware that other countries have found other paths. I also don't think procedurally valid court cases need to have unanimity. But if you sign up for a constitution that guarantees convicts a jury trial and you demand conservative interpretations what outcome do you really expect?

The autonomy of USA's "states" is getting erroded more and more everyday.

supernova87a 7y ago

What do you mean?

saagarjha 7y ago
It seems like the parent commenter is unhappy that the Supreme Court ruled to end a state practice, likely one that they supported, even though such “interference” is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.
- supernova87a 7y ago
  I express my puzzlement, because I would love the parent to come back and explain. I would bet that the principle the parent embraces is not "states have a right to exercise autonomy" but rather "states have a right to exercise autonomy on those things I agree with". You know, like when people advocate for states' rights, except when a state decides to do something like narrow the right to handguns, or environmental regulations, or something like that. I thought that we agreed as a country that things guaranteed in the Constitution applied regardless of what state.
squiggleblaz 7y ago
Defacto, it used to be the case that states had the ability to select their own rules regarding juries. Some states required unanimous verdicts and some did not. Now, it is likely the case that defacto states do not have that ability. Since America broadly follows rule of law, I think it is highly likely that this decision will be enforced. According to the supreme court, it was never legally the case that the states had that right, and the states will have to decide how to respond with respect to the incorrectly convicted people. But many people were put in prison on the basis of majority verdicts and this decision doesn't give them their time served back - it only changes the future. So the op is right to consider that something has changed and states are likely to be unable to do something that they used to do. It is surely not a hill I would want to die on, and I surely do not think a state should have a right to preserve white supremacy.[] It seems we all knew what the right to jury trial meant, and conservatives have been arguing for the court to consider the originalist meaning. [] I don't think a majority verdict necessarily needs to have any relationship with white supremacy, and I'm aware that other countries have found other paths. I also don't think procedurally valid court cases need to have unanimity. But if you sign up for a constitution that guarantees convicts a jury trial and you demand conservative interpretations what outcome do you really expect?