4 ms·
States follow the Supreme Court's rulings, that is less guaranteed in a situation where there is less balance of power. There is no physical force preventing st
by rtpg 5y ago
States follow the Supreme Court's rulings, that is less guaranteed in a situation where there is less balance of power. There is no physical force preventing states from ignoring rulings (and of course in practice they do ignore shit, but politics happens at the courts as well).
I agree 100% that Congress could cement abortion as a right tomorrow and should have a billion years ago. It's insulting to everyone that we have had to watch the degradation of rights through court rulings over time as congress shrugs its shoulders because they are afraid of having convictions.
But I still think that if states had more power, we simply would have less civil rights across the board. States can already pass laws and guarantee rights at a state level, and many simply choose not to.
It's all terrible right now, but I can only see things getting worse if you just say "let's have the states do stuff", based on the past ... I don't know, century of American history.
Just how I see things at the moment though, and I will freely admit I am biased to believe my theory and haven't tried to research much to the contrary.
- nostromo 5y agoI get what you’re saying. But remember laws like DOMA that were passed not very long ago that were explicitly written to prevent states from expanding rights. And almost all recent civil rights advancements have not come from congress but the courts. Since the Civil Rights Act, the trend is that congress and the executive narrows rights and the court broadens them.