States' Rights for Me, But Not for Thee

What the hell happened to "states' rights?" asks Arthur Silber. A good question, and one which I've blogged about before. As Arthur says,

conservatives only use that doctrine when it gives them the result they want. When it doesn't, forget about it, and let's federalize everything.

That's why I found it so difficult to go along with the argument many conservatives were making in Lawrence v. Texas. They do not apply the doctrine of states' rights consistently. As I posted earlier:

many conservatives are all for states rights when a state is trying to take away freedom, but let that same state dare attempt to expand freedom (as in the case of liberalized marijuana laws), and they'll goose step all over everyone in the name of federal supremacy.

Worse yet, Arthur makes the point that they compound this hypocrisy with an even greater hypocrisy, by demanding the courts step in and enforce their version of the Culture War:

But the hypocrisy of Bush and his gang is even worse. What about those voter initiatives that approved decriminalizing marijuana use for medical purposes? Well, we can't have that, the people expressing their will by "democratic" means. So let's use the courts to get the result we want -- which is precisely the charge that all the conservatives made about the recent Supreme Court sodomy decision, for example.

Don't expect the conservatives to whine and complain about the federal government stomping all over the rights of states, and using the courts to enforce the Culture War. Such overreaching is just fine -- but only when they happen to like the result.

One thing I have learned: if you believe in principles, stay the hell out of politics. (You might try blogging instead.)