[ravitation]

This is one of those cases, where, people like the original commenter, if we assume they are arguing in good faith, will then be "surprised" when it turns out those they are electing actually aren't committed to it being a "states' rights" issue. Devolution of authority to the states is just the current tool the right have to further restrict access to abortion, if federal legislative power to ban abortion becomes available to them, they will drop the "states' rights" approach immediately.

It's really a tale as old as time (or at least as old as the United States). "States' rights," outside of theoretical discussions, has always simply been a tool, not a true guiding ideology.

[FireBeyond]

Yup. Funny how Thomas, in his opinion, believes "access to contraceptives, "same sex relationships", "same sex marriage" are all "errors that need to be corrected in the context of "states' rights", but somehow "interracial marriage" isn't.

[tshaddox]

Good faith is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. If you're proposing something bad I'm going to oppose you regardless of whether you're proposing it in good faith.

[ravitation]

My point about good faith was assuming people that claim to simply be in favor of devolution of authority to legislatures or states are being truthful; and not just also saying that because its a useful and expedient defense.