Sorry, I didn't know it was controversial, I thought it was a fact. I listen to a lot of podcasts about the supreme court from the Constitution Center (very very good btw) and some of the judicial philosophies very often advanced by conservatives are originalism and judicial restraint.
I don't have any eggs in this game, so I maybe should have added : politics on both sides are primarly shape shifters and adapt their positions to their relative powers and current objectives. I only think that at one point both sides should take their responsabilities and own their previous positions, accountability is the only way to move forward imo.
> And Democrats argue states’ rights when it suits them.
No, they don't, and the ones that were once prone to had all become Republicans in the realignment beginning in 1964 that was largely complete by the 1990s.
Democrats might argue Constitutional limits on the power of the federal government, but “state’s rights” has been attached to a very specific ideology since before the Civil War.
The net neutrality debate is about the repeal of fedral rules rather than adding an additional law. Thus a state's right to set their own rules applies. There is no fedral law to make ISPs behave in a certain way, just the lack of one, so the states should be able to set their own rules in cases like this as long as they are not unconstitutional.
States' rights do not apply in the opposite case when a fedral rule is made and the states don't want to enforce it or have a law that contradicts it. Their laws can't undermine the fedral law.
Hope that's helpful for your understanding of why this is different to the normal "states' rights" argument which is invoked when a state wants to avoid fedral rules.
Democrats use state rights to protect scientifically and economically sound policies when there is an obvious bad faith actions on the part of the Federal Government.
That’s a bad argument to make, only because conservatives believe that their state’s rights issues also stem from scientifically and economically sound policy.
No they don't. Their arguments are based around different interpretations of the constitution and protection of various ill-defined "freedoms" (freedom from religious persecution, freedom of choice etc.)
They happily do not include science in their political calculus.
I think this should be the key takeaway: it shouldn't be us vs them. Decent people exist on both sides, but they don't seem to run the show on either side :-/
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html