Basic logic test

there are legal mandates and then there are illegal ones

but where I grew up such distinctions fell on deaf ears

one thing I do know, however, is this: a man with two watches never knows what time it is

... Hmmmm... And you can surely pick your friends, and you
can pick your nose - but you can't pick your friend's nose.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Then is that really a friend....

one thing I do know, however, is this: a man with two watches never knows what time it is Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Even if they're synced?

Thank you for a thoughtful and intelligent reply, it's exactly what I had hoped to promote. But, the SC is part of the judicial arm of the federal government, so does that mean that ultimately the federal intrepretation can negate any state choice? Originally Posted by 69in2it69

It means that the SC is the judge of last resort.

That they are appointed and therefore political in nature...the thought that they interpret the constitution is comical. All they do is justify their own political views and codify those 9 views into law.

Awww poop!

I thought y’all were talking about man dating.

No wonder we’re missing some of our usual posters!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHS!

(Clearly an example of Schrodinger’s Pussy!)

Thank you for a thoughtful and intelligent reply, it's exactly what I had hoped to promote. But, the SC is part of the judicial arm of the federal government, so does that mean that ultimately the federal intrepretation can negate any state choice? Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Only if those "choices" are enumerated in the Constitution. I'm not trying to be a smart ass but it's all right there in the Constitution for the SC to say and if we the people don't like a SC decision, we can amend the Constitution like we have done 27 times before and "theoretically" there is noting the SC can do about that.


If Roe is overturned and returned to the states and 38 states get together and say "we want Roe to be the law of the land", that is the end of the SC's authority. The founding fathers were brilliant in that they seemed to cover all the bases. No one branch has "Ultimate" authority. Ultimate authority rests with the people "if we can keep it", if we believe it.


And thanks for the compliment.

A state mandate against a federal mandate would generally fail. The supremacy clause would allow the federal govt to take precedent if the federal rule were legal to begin with. The federal govt can legislate and make rules with a lot of them falling under the commerce clause. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Yep.